HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2012 MTC Agenda Packet
CA
Ch
RO
Ch
Vi
Co
Sta
ALL TO O
hair calls th
OLL CAL
hair:
ce-Chair:
ommittee M
aff:
M
ORDER
he meeting
LL OF CO
Elizabeth T
Art Apruzz
Members:
Jody Frey
Susan Ra
Jean Long
Vacant
Elizabeth
John Webs
Dee Lawso
A
CI
MASS TR
S
(*Please
W
to order.
OMMITTE
Thyne
zese
y
ains
g
h Thyne
ster, Sr., Tr
on, Transp
AGE
REGULA
ITY OF S
RANSPO
179 Cro
LORTA C
note the m
2:
Wednesda
EE MEMB
(Disabled
(Cal Poly
(Student
(Business)
(Senior)
ransit Man
ortation As
END
AR MEET
SAN LUI
ORTATIO
ss Street,
Conferenc
meeting loc
:45 p.m.
ay, July 1
BERS AND
d) Todd
y) Art A
t) Louis
) Jonath
ager
ssistant
DA
TING
IS OBISP
ON COM
, Suite A
ce Room
cation cha
11, 2012
D STAFF
d Katz
Apruzzese
se Justice
than Ellis
PO
MMITTEE
ange*)
(Member at
(Techni
(Altern
(Altern
E
t Large)*
ical)
nate)
nate)
1
July 11, 2012 Regular meeting MTC agenda
Page 2 of 3
2
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
It is with great regret that Business Representative Stanley Yucikas has tendered his resignation
effective immediately. City staff is very thankful for his dedication and support to the MTC and
public transportation. The City Clerk will be posting the vacancy and members are encouraged
to seek out interested applicants from the business community.
PUBLIC COMMENTS 10 min.
At this time, members of the public may address the Committee on items not on the agenda, not
to exceed three minutes per person. Items raised are generally referred to the staff and, if
action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
The Chair will provide the opportunity for the public to address items on the agenda.
A. CONSENT ITEMS
Consent Items can be approved by a single vote by the Committee. Any member of the Committee
can pull and discuss any individual consent item.
A-1 Approval of minutes from May 9, 2012 5 min
B. DISCUSSION ITEMS
B-1 Ad Hoc Committee marketing verbal status update 10 min
C. ACTION ITEMS
None
D. INFORMATION ITEMS
D-1 Transit Manager’s Report 15 min
D-2 Operating - Performance Reports (Attachment “A”) 15 min
Service Complaints: Complaints regarding bus service or routes are to be directed
to the Transportation Assistant at 781-7531. Reports of complaints/commendations
are available to the public upon request.
2
July 11, 2012 Regular meeting MTC agenda
Page 3 of 3
3
MEMBER’S COMMENTS 15 min
NEXT MEETING DATE/LOCATION
September 12, 2012 2:45 pm-4:45 pm,
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street
ADJOURNMENT
G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Committees\MTC Committee\FY 2013\JULY 11-2012\1-Draft MTC
Agenda,REGULAR MEETING JULY 11-2012-.docx
3
e-Newsletter #1
Welcome to the SLO Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Applications Study e-Newsletter, the first of
two e-documents keeping SLO County residents informed and showcasing the project’s
goals & objectives, funding sources, project team members, deliverables, and examples of
BRT in other communities. Ongoing and current information can be found on the project
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/SLOCountyRegionalBRTApplicationsStudy. The
Facebook page is also a forum for gathering input from the community, so do not hesitate
to post your questions or comments.
Project team and ScoPe
A team of experts was hired through a public competitive bid process lead by SLocoG. The consultant team includes Fehr & Peers, a
transportation planning and engineering firm in San Jose, LSc transportation consultants, a multi modal transportation engineering,
research and design firm based in Lake Tahoe, as well as the SLO-based land use planning, economics and public outreach firm, Lisa
Wise consulting, Inc. Throughout the project, the team will be working to review past transit planning work in the County and assess the
most effective and feasible strategies to consider along the US 101 corridor in the future. The team will be compiling a great deal of data
for this analysis as well as seeking input from SLO county residents, employees and other stakeholders through a focus group, on-line
survey and open house. The final report will include results from the technical evaluations, identification of strategies for planning and
phasing, and strategies for investing and developing the most feasible BRT improvements. The project is slated to be completed in May of
2013. Please refer to the project timeline for more specific dates and tasks.
SLo county US 101 corridor
BUS RAPid TRANSiT (BRT)
Paso Robles
Grover Beach
Nipomo
Templeton
Oceano
Pismo Beach
Santa
Maria
Morro Bay
San Luis
Obispo
Atascadero
Arroyo Grande
Cambria
Guadalupe
San Luis Obispo County
Figure 1Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1310_SLOCOG_BRT\Graphics\GIS\Fig_1_SLO_County.mxd
£¤101
·|}þ1
·|}þ46
02.557.510
Miles F
Legend
RTA Route 9
RTA Route 10
County Boundary
Project BackGroUnd
In March of 2012, the San Luis Council of Governments (SLOCOG) initiated
a BRT Applications Study for the US 101 corridor. The project is funded by a
Federal Transit Administration Section 5304 planning grant. Amongst several
targeted activities, the grant is aimed at supporting activities that “protect and
enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality
of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements
and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns”.
SLOCOG has targeted safe, efficient and attractive public transportation as a
critical planning tool to preserve the unique lifestyle in San Luis Obispo and
accommodate for anticipated growth in population.
the US 101 corridor Brt goals include:
• Streamlining and improving the quality of bus transit service in San Luis
Obispo County;
• Developing strategies to attract new transit riders in the County, and
• Identifying the most cost-effective transit improvements that can be
implemented along the US 101 corridor.
The benefits of BRT can be substantial, including lower environmental impacts
(compared to automobile travel), less traffic congestion, faster, more reliable
transit service, and higher quality bus stops and other amenities for bus riders.
4
SLocoG Brt- Get Involved
Public involvement is a critical element of this
project. as such, several coordinated efforts
are underway to better understand SLo county
resident’s perspective of Brt and how bus service,
particularly express service along the US 101
corridor, could be more attractive and effective.
all SLo county residents and/or employees
are invited to participate in an on-line survey.
Participants will have the chance to win $25 to
Bello mundo cafe in downtown San Luis obispo.
to access the survey click here, or visit:
www.surveymonkey.com/s/SLoBrt.
the survey takes approximately 5 minutes
to complete and participation is completely
confidential. The on-line survey is an effective
method to collect input from a large number of
existing riders and potential new public transit
riders. It will also help the team identify what
transit improvements might translate to the
greatest increases in ridership.
the outreach effort at a Glance:
What’s Been
done?
on-going
outreach
What’s to
come?
• 1 Focus Group
meeting held in
early may 2012
• enewsletter #1
• Facebook
page
• online
Survey
• enewsletter #2
• open House in
early 2013
How to Stay Involved
• complete the online SLocoG Brt survey
• Visit the SLo county Brt applications Study
Facebook Page for dates and times of
meetings, project updates and findings, and
to view examples of Brt
• Post questions or comments on the Facebook
Page
• attend the future SLocoG Brt workshop/
open house (in early 2013) and SLocoG
Board presentation
WHat doeS Brt mean For SLo coUnty?
BRT options for SLO County will focus on increasing the speed, consistency and overall
operating conditions of bus travel along the US 101 corridor from Paso Robles to Santa
Maria. Bus improvements all aim at faster, more frequent and more attractive transit
options for SLO County residents and visitors in their north/south countywide trips
between work and home, hotel and tourist destinations and connections with other
regional, State, and national transit systems. Such a system could include:
• A dedicated lane on certain streets or at certain interchanges along US 101
• Bus operations on the freeway shoulder right of way
• More efficient integration with local surface public transit services
• Preferential priority at traffic signals
• Higher quality buses designed to improve passenger comfort
• Improved waiting areas at bus stops and park and ride lots
• “Off bus” fare collection systems
WorLdWIde Brt SUcceSS StorIeS
BRT has been successfully applied in the Americas for decades, Latin America being a
global leader. Examples of BRT on or near freeways in the U.S. include: Metro Orange
Line in the San Fernando Valley area, El Monte Busway in the median of the San
Bernardino Freeway (I-10), Harbor Transitway on Harbor Freeway (I-110), as well as
the highly successful on-highway BRT system in Marin County. Other examples of
BRT in the US include RTA Healthline in Cleveland, Ohio, the Silverline in Boston,
Massachusetts, and the EmX LTD in Eugene, Oregon.
BRT advantages can be offset by challenges in complying with state vehicle code,
coordination with Caltrans, and the assignment of responsibilities for developing
policies, procedures, standards and guidance. In addition, financing improvements
in the current economic climate is a challenge. However, despite hurdles, BRT has a
proven record of successfully increasing bus ridership worldwide.
5
Item:
DATE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJE
RECOM
Appr
G:\Transporta
ITEM A-1 RE
A-1
July
Mass
John
ECT: APPR
MMENDA
rove May
ation-Data\_Unsor
EG MEETING Jul
Pa
11, 2012
s Transport
Webster, T
ROVE DR
ATION:
9, 2012 Re
rted Stuff\Transp
ly 9--2012- APPR
age 1 of 1 Re
tation Com
Transit Ma
RAFT RE
egular mee
ortation\Transport
ROVE MINUTES C
egular meetin
mmittee
anager
GULAR M
eting minut
tation Committee
COVER SHEET.d
ng July 11,, 2
MEETING
tes.
es\MTC Committ
docx
012 MTC Ag
G MINUT
tee\FY 2013\JUL
genda item A-
TES
LY 11-2012\2-AG
-1 1
GENDA
6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM
990 PALM ST.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Elizabeth Thyne called the meeting to order at 2:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Susan Rains, Elizabeth Thyne, Art Apruzzese, Louise Justice, Jody Frey,
Jean Long, and Todd Katz
Absent Stanley Yucikas, Mayor Jan Marx, Councilmember Andrew Carter
Staff: John Webster
*Jody Frey arrived at 2:55 pm and Susan Rains arrived at 3:10 pm
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Webster announced that Mr. Yucikas would get sworn in by the City Clerk in her
office, as he was unable to make the MTC meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
A. CONSENT ITEMS
A-1. Approval of March 14, 2012 Regular Meeting
Mr. Ellis and Ms. Long requested that the language on page 9 be amended to read “Jean
Long and Jonathan Ellis had reservations regarding safety camera ability to prevent
crimes.”
Mr. Katz clarified that on page 10, he “suggested the fleets might consider purchasing
more cost-effective vehicles” and on page 11, that the “SLOCOG has projected a 9.3%
increase in sales tax revenue.”
7
Mr. Apruzzese moved to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Katz seconded
the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
B. DISCUSSION ITEMS
B-1. Ad Hoc Committee marketing update
Mr. Apruzzese presented a comprehensive outline discussing the progress of the Ad Hoc
Committee, with the primary objective of attracting the choice riders. He projected the
outreach/education effort to continue for 6-12 months.
The MTC members were very impressed with the marketing efforts and progress.
Ms. Long was concerned about the need for a scope of contract understanding between
the student “agency” and the City.
After much discussion, the MTC agreed that the Ad Hoc Committee should specifically
address the parameters and expectations between the City and the student agency
members.
C. ACTION ITEMS
C-1. Review and approve the meeting schedule for FY 2012-2013
Ms. Justice moved to approve the meeting schedule as presented.
Mr. Katz seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
C-2. Nomination and election of officers for FY 2012-13
John Webster noted he had a call from Stanley Yucikas who indicated he would be
unable to accept a nomination for another term as vice chair.
Mr. Katz nominated Ms. Thyne to continue as Chair. Ms. Rains seconded the
nomination.
The MTC voted unanimously for Ms. Thyne to continue serving as Chair.
Mr. Katz nominated Mr. Apruzzese as Vice Chair. Ms. Justice seconded the nomination.
8
The MTC voted unanimously for Mr. Apruzzese to serve as Vice Chair.
Lisa Woske had to leave early at 4:00 pm due to a prior appointment. Transit Manager
John Webster provided the remaining minutes.
D. INFORMATION ITEMS
D-1. Transit Manager’s Report
D-2. Operating-Performance Reports
Fred Munroe from Ridership Development Consultants provided a Power Point
presentation on the FTA 5317 New Freedom grant, “Expanding Transportation options in
San Luis Obispo.” He noted that approximately 2,000 stakeholders were initially invited
to be part of the process and 300 have participated through the first two year grant cycle
that was completed on January 31, 2012.
He noted a 9.9% increase in senior cash riders and a 22.8% increase in the VIP (80+)
ridership over FY 2010 just prior to this grant cycle. He noted that the next cycle is
looking to conduct additional marketing with new materials and is looking to get
additional volunteers.
Mr. Munroe also provided various handouts.
The Committee comments were very positive in nature regarding the program and
thanked Mr. Munroe for his hard work. The Committee also liked the new marketing
materials and that they were being distributed and available at many diverse locations.
Mr. Webster presented the Transit Manager’s report and a review of the performance
indicators and noted that YTD ridership was up over 7% with total ridership expected to
exceed 1.1 million in FY 2011-12 for the first time in SLO Transit history.
MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Webster informed the Committee that SLORTA Executive Director, Geoff Straw had
offered to host the next MTC meeting on July 11th at the SLORTA facility. Mr. Webster
indicated that SLO Transit would provide transportation at noon leaving from the
Downtown Transit Center (DTC) with a tour of the SLO Transit facility followed by a
tour of the SLORTA operations and maintenance facility and finally the regular meeting
at 2:45 pm. Members comments were very positive and expressed a willingness to accept
the offer.
Elizabeth Thyne moved to have the July 11, 2012 meeting at the SLORTA Transit
facility.
Art Apruzzese seconded the motion.
9
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote to approve and move the July 11, 2012
meeting location.
Elizabeth Thyne moved to adjourn the meeting
Louise Justice seconded the motion.
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote and the meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m. to
the regular meeting of July 11, 2012 to be held at 2:45 p.m. at the SLORTA Conference
Room, 179 Cross Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary
10
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
Item:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEC
The Tr
data fro
Ridersh
Transit
On June
Council
as an att
This rep
that ma
Financi
availabl
that the
amount
As of th
percent
final tra
budget
until the
already
and anti
25% ap
to supp
25% ap
reducin
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
D-1
Mass
John
July
CT: Trans
ansit Man
om May-J
hip and pe
t Fund Re
e 12, 2012
l. The follo
tachment.
port summ
ay affect t
al Plan. Fu
le for new
e Transit F
to assist w
his writing
of transit a
ansit appo
stalemate
e end of th
submitted
icipates pa
portionme
ort the def
pportionme
g service l
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
s Transport
Webster, S
11, 2012
sit Manage
nager’s Re
June 2012.
erformanc
port FY 2
staff prese
owing are
marizes the
the health
unding for
w initiatives
Fund will
with operat
g, the Fede
appropriati
rtionments
in Washin
he Federal
d a grant ap
ayment of t
ents be low
ficit for th
ent be sign
evels and/o
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
tation Com
Sr., Transi
er’s Report
eport will i
.
ce reports
2011-12
ented the T
excerpts fr
e status of
of the fun
r transit ser
s or major
end 2011-
tions and m
eral Gover
ions for th
s will rem
ngton, the
l fiscal yea
pplication f
this portion
wer than pro
e immedia
nificant, sta
or deferme
sportation Commi
docx
mmittee
t Manager
t
include hi
(D-2 Atta
Transit Ent
from the re
f the Trans
nd during
rvices con
r capital ex
-12 with a
minor capit
rnment has
e 2011-12
main at cur
final 25%
ar on Septe
for the 75%
n by Augu
ojected, Tr
ate shortfal
aff will ret
ent of capit
ittees\MTC Comm
r
ighlights o
achment “A
terprise Fu
eport and th
sit Enterpr
the secon
ntinues to b
xpenditure
a modest y
tal expendi
s yet to ad
fiscal year
rrent levels
% apportio
ember 30,
% apportio
ust 2012. H
ransit Fund
ll. Should
turn to Cou
tal projects
mittee\FY 2013\JU
of issues an
A”)
und report a
he full rep
rise Fund a
nd year of
be tight, w
es. Overall
year-end w
iture projec
dopt the fin
r. Indicatio
s but due
nment cou
2012. SL
onment of
However, s
d reserves
d a reducti
uncil with
s.
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
nd ridersh
and analys
ort is prov
and key is
f the two
with no fun
l, it is fore
working ca
ct needs.
nal twenty-
ons are tha
to the cur
uld be dela
LO Transit
transit fun
should the
will be nee
ion in the
a proposa
GENDA
1
hip
sis to
vided
ssues
year
nding
ecast
apital
-five
at the
rrent
ayed
t has
nding
final
eded
final
al for
11
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
Tran
1. R
2. M
3. A
4. E
5. C
Tran
State
State B
O
c
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
nsit Accom
Ridership
SLO
throu
riders
Mobility Tr
SLO
15%
2009
Ad Hoc Ma
On M
appro
2012
prese
conti
trans
Excellence
Tim
by th
an Ex
SLO
and m
Completion
This
Footh
remo
2012
nsit Reven
e Funding
Budget Imp
Overall, the
hanges to f
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
mplishmen
Transit ri
ugh April
ship for 20
raining - N
Transit h
(13,568 ri
-10 before
arketing Co
March 9,
oved the S
, the MTC
entations an
nue worki
it system m
in Governm
Bochum,
he Municip
xcellence
Transit sy
maintaining
n of Foothi
capital
hill/Tassaja
ove the bus
.
nues
pacts
e Governor
funding fo
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
nts in 2011
dership is
30, 2012
011-12 will
New Freedo
as experie
ders) in thi
e the start o
ommittee
2011, the
SLO Trans
C members
nd recomm
ing with C
marketing i
ment Awar
the Deputy
pal Manag
in Govern
ystem, opt
g on-time p
ll/Tassajar
improvem
ara to allo
ses from R
r's propose
or transport
sportation Commi
docx
1-12
up 7.75%
. It is
l exceed 1.
oms Grant
enced a ye
is segment
of this gran
e Mass T
sit market
reviewed
mended the
Cal Poly t
in the 2012
rd
y Director
er’s Assoc
nment Awa
timizing ro
performan
ra corner M
ment pro
ow buses t
Ramona. T
ed State bu
tation or pu
ittees\MTC Comm
% for a tota
projected
.1 million r
ear-to-date
t as compa
nt funded p
Transportat
ting plan r
five Cal P
e Ad Hoc
to develop
2-13 fiscal
r of Public
ciation of S
ard for his
outes used
nce of the b
Modificatio
oject wid
to again u
This projec
udget does
ublic trans
mittee\FY 2013\JU
al of 940,9
that SLO
riders.
increase i
ared to the
program.
tion Comm
report. . O
Poly class m
Marketing
p products
l year.
c Works w
Southern C
s work in
d to serve
buses.
on
dened the
use this in
ct was com
not make
it.
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
923 passen
O Transit
in ridershi
same perio
mittee (M
On March
marketing
g Committe
to assist
was recogn
California
enhancing
the unive
e corner
ntersection
mpleted in
any signifi
GENDA
2
ngers
total
ip of
od in
MTC)
h 14,
plan
ee to
with
nized
with
g the
ersity
of
and
May
ficant
12
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
SLO Re
The rec
SLORT
by appr
State Tr
The Sta
for tran
from ¼
(STA),
are distr
The Sta
projecte
an incre
Local T
The Co
11% in
which i
Federal
Program
The Tra
Assistan
projecti
mainten
Subsidi
Cal Poly
The Cit
which b
Trolley
The Fri
Coordin
Transit
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
egional Tra
ently adop
TA, thereby
roximately
ransportati
ate Transpo
sportation
¼ cent colle
is derived
ributed to t
ate budge
ed STA fu
ease of app
Transportat
unty Audi
ncrease in
s not antici
Funding
m of Proje
ansit Fund
nce (FTA)
ion provid
nance funct
es
ly Subsidy A
ty success
began on Ju
Operation
iday and
nating Com
operating
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
ansit Autho
pted 2012-1
y decreasin
$145,500
ion Develo
ortation De
programs.
ected in re
d from the
the regions
t has yet
unding allo
proximately
tion Fund
itor LTF p
2012-13 l
ipated in fu
cts
d analysis
5307 fund
des adequa
tions for S
Agreemen
fully nego
uly 1, 2011
ns
Saturday
mmittee (P
funds to co
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
ority
13 SLORT
ng SLO T
in 2012-13
opment Act
evelopmen
. The first,
etail sales
statewide
s by the Sta
to be ap
ocation rem
y $48,000
rojections
largely attr
future years
anticipate
ding appor
ate suppor
LO Transi
t
otiated a f
1.
Trolley fu
PCC) will
ontinue thi
sportation Commi
docx
TA budget
Transit's all
3.
t
nt Act (TDA
Local Tra
taxes. The
sales tax o
ate.
pproved an
mains preli
over 2011
are higher
ributed to
s.
es the sam
rtionment f
rt for ope
it only.
five-year S
unding sub
end on Ju
is service th
ittees\MTC Comm
increased
lotment of
A) provide
ansportatio
e second,
on diesel f
nd therefo
iminary at
-12 FY.
r than orig
a one-tim
me level of
for in the 2
erating as
Subsidy Ag
bsidy from
une 30, 20
hrough the
mittee\FY 2013\JU
the City's
f State rev
es two sour
n Fund (L
State Tran
fuel. Both
ore the St
this time
ginally esti
me carryov
f Federal
2012-13 fis
sistance a
greement
m the SLO
012. There
e end of Oc
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
contributio
venue avail
rces of fun
TF), is der
nsit Assist
of these fu
tate Contr
but repres
imated wit
ver of fund
Transporta
scal year.
and preven
with Cal
O Promoti
e are suffic
ctober 201
GENDA
3
on to
lable
nding
rived
tance
funds
roller
sents
th an
ding,
ation
This
ntive
Poly
ional
cient
2.
13
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
Ridersh
42%) w
services
determi
Friday
service
loss of
product
April pe
SLO Tr
First Tr
In June
Transit
mainten
through
Continu
Fuel co
prices i
showing
next ye
118,000
to be ad
assumpt
Cost All
The rev
in a ver
33% or
year is s
to the
charges
Farebox
With th
to stabil
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
hip on Frid
when comp
s conclude
ne if furth
and Saturd
levels con
f subsidy
tive with a
eriod last y
ransit Ope
ransit Serv
e 2006 the
to provide
nance serv
h June 30, 2
ued Volatil
sts are onc
ncreased s
g stabilizat
ear. Staff h
0 gallons o
dequate for
tion difficu
location
vised Cost
ry significa
$118,000
significant
change in
for Enterp
x Ratio
e fare incr
lize in 201
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
days and S
pared to t
e in Octob
her servic
day trolley
tinue to se
funding
an overall i
year.
erating Pr
ice Contra
City Cou
e SLO Tra
vices. In F
2013.
lity in Fuel
ce again ve
significantl
tion in Apr
has project
of diesel fu
r the 2012
ult to contr
Allocation
ant increas
(33%) ov
t and effect
methodol
prise Funds
ease appro
0-11 and b
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
Saturdays h
the same
ber, staff
e adjustm
y services
e steady ri
from the
increase of
rogram
act
uncil appro
ansit with P
ebruary 20
l Costs
ery volatile
ly to almo
ril, staff pr
ted fuel co
uel purchas
-13 fiscal y
rol. .
n Plan, app
se to Trans
er previou
ts actual se
logy for h
s that recei
oved in 200
beyond. Sta
sportation Commi
docx
have dropp
July-April
will evalu
ments are w
again in
idership tre
PCC. T
f 5.36% (+
oved a thre
Purchased
012, Coun
e as experi
ost $5 per
rojects fuel
osts at $4.
sed in a fis
year but ou
proved by C
sit Services
usly project
ervice on t
how the C
ive Genera
09, SLO Tr
aff projecte
ittees\MTC Comm
ped signif
l period la
uate the t
warranted
April 201
ends and w
Thursday
+499 rider
ee-year ser
d Transport
ncil approv
ienced in 2
gallon. Al
l costs will
.32 per ga
cal year. S
utside mar
Council on
s indirect c
ted amoun
the street. T
City calcul
al Fund pro
ransit’s far
ed the rene
mittee\FY 2013\JU
ficantly (-2
ast year.
trolley rid
and wheth
3. The Th
will not be
trolley se
rs) during t
rvice cont
tation for o
ved a cont
2008 and 2
lthough fu
l continue t
allon with
Staff proje
rket influen
n May 15,
charges. T
nts for the
The increa
lates direc
ogram supp
rebox ratio
egotiated C
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
2,352 rider
When tro
ership dat
her to res
hursday tro
affected by
ervice rem
the same J
tract with
operations
tract exten
2010 when
uel prices w
to rise ove
an averag
ects this bu
nces make
2012, resu
This increas
2011-12 f
ase is attrib
ct and ind
port.
o was proje
Cal Poly
GENDA
4
rs or
olley
ta to
sume
olley
y the
mains
July-
First
s and
nsion
fuel
were
er the
ge of
udget
e this
ulted
se of
fiscal
buted
direct
ected
14
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
Subsidy
farebox
have fa
average
ratios is
and ind
support
FISCA
Staff is
capital.
grants a
level re
very litt
Change
Overall
a positiv
The rev
includes
reductio
State fu
with a s
which m
reserves
Maintai
three re
•
•
•
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
y Agreeme
x ratio for t
llen slightl
e of 19.6%
s a direct re
direct char
.
L IMPAC
projecting
Funding c
and final b
ductions f
tle capacity
s in Finan
, revenues
ve year-en
vised 2011-
s assumpti
ons by Stat
unding incr
small year-
minimizes
s to addres
ining year-
asons:
Minimiz
reductio
Minimiz
operatio
Weather
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
ent would
he SLO Tr
ly below t
. This will
esult of a c
rges for E
CT
g the 2012
continues t
budget app
for SLO Tr
y for fundi
ncial Positi
are projec
d balance o
-12 budget
ons of reve
te budget t
reases for F
-end saving
capital pro
ss minor sh
-end worki
zing servic
ns
zing servic
ns and ma
ring volatil
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
be a key
ransit syste
he 20% re
continue t
change in t
Enterprise
-13 fiscal
to be lean
propriation
ransit at th
ng variatio
ion is incl
cted to mee
of $96,500
t and projec
enues in ke
ake-aways
FY 2013, s
gs of $67,7
ojects, defe
hortfalls in
ng capital
ce-level im
ce-level im
intenance
le fuel pric
sportation Commi
docx
y compone
em. In the
equired far
through 20
the City’s
Funds tha
year to en
and highly
s. While
his time, th
ons.
luded as p
et or excee
0 as we mo
cted fundin
ey funding
s over the p
staff projec
700. Staff i
ers bus repl
revenues.
reserve fun
mpacts as a
mpacts as a
contract co
ces
ittees\MTC Comm
ent in me
e 2011-12 f
rebox ratio
013-2014.
methodolo
at receive
nd with a m
y dependen
staff does
he projecte
part of the
ed expendit
ove into ne
ng for the 2
g sources th
past three y
cts ending t
is proposin
lacements
nding is pr
result of S
a result of
osts
mittee\FY 2013\JU
eeting the
fiscal year,
o with a pr
This decre
ogy for cal
General F
modest yea
nt upon Fed
not projec
ed revenue
2011-12 F
tures in 20
ext year.
2012-13 F
hat have se
years. With
the 2012-1
ng a conser
and maint
rudent for
State and F
purchased
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
required
, farebox ra
rojected an
ease in fare
lculating d
Fund prog
ar-end wor
deral and S
ct any serv
forecasts
Fund Ana
011-12; lea
Financial Pl
een signific
h the one-t
13 fiscal ye
rvative bud
tains year-e
the follow
Federal bu
d transporta
GENDA
5
20%
atios
nnual
ebox
direct
gram
rking
State
vice-
give
alysis
aving
lan
cant
time
ear
dget,
end
wing
udget
ation
15
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
First Tr
First Tr
collision
by 71%
incident
driver th
board p
First Tr
last eigh
their dr
all City
Automa
engine s
Mo
JUL
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
TOTA
Change
On Jun
announc
Lichtig
“This m
announ
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
ransit Acc
ransit (FT
ns for the S
% over the
t (non-coll
hat failed
assenger in
ransit. Tabl
ht FY peri
rivers and
y owned
atic Fire s
shutdown i
onth2004
0
1
T 0
0
V 0
0
0
1
R 0
0
Y 0
0
AL2
es in Publi
ne 15, 20
ced his res
issued the
morning I m
ced the tem
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
cident Rec
T) has mad
SLO Trans
e previous
lision) occ
to properly
njury. The
le one refl
ods. In add
their safet
2007 or
suppression
in the even
-052005-0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
50%
ic Works S
012 Jay W
signation e
following
met with t
mporary ap
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
cord:
de good p
sit system.
fiscal yea
curred dur
y secure a
driver ulti
ects the ov
dition Firs
ty training
later bus
n systems
nt of an eng
Table 1 Pr
062006-07
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
-33%
Staffing:
Walter, Di
effective Ju
g announce
the Public
ppointment
sportation Commi
docx
progress w
During FY
ar (FY) pe
ring this F
three whe
imately res
verall FT p
t Transit h
includes v
models a
programm
gine fire.
reventable
7 2007-08
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
2
9
350%
irector of
uly 11, 201
ement on Ju
Works an
t of Utilitie
ittees\MTC Comm
with reduc
Y 2011-12
eriod. One
FY and wa
eeled scoot
signed and
preventable
holds mont
vehicle ev
are equipp
med with
Collisions
2008-09
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
9
0%
SLO Pub
12. As a re
uly 2, 2012
d Utilities
es Director
mittee\FY 2013\JU
cing preve
the numbe
e FTA rep
as in conn
ter and res
d is no long
e collision
thly safety
vacuation p
ped with
a 15 seco
s
2009-10 2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
-56%
blic Work
esult City m
2:
managem
r Carrie M
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
entable veh
er was redu
portable m
nection wi
sulted in a
ger working
log during
meetings
procedures
Amerex V
ond autom
2010-1120
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
7
75%-
ks Departm
manager, K
ment teams
Mattingly
GENDA
6
hicle
uced
major
ith a
an on
g for
g the
with
and
V-25
matic
011-12
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-71%
ment
Katie
and
16
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
(cmattin
2012.
Directo
interim
the City
critical
fact, we
and ant
In addit
on exte
Deputy
jhudson
Vehicle
model
manufa
Two ad
Other C
Curren
by Octo
expende
Some fa
replacem
The Bu
facility
were co
and the
Transit
include
located
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
ngly@sloc
During th
r. I expect
assignmen
y family, ou
time. Thi
e will be la
ticipate hav
tion Tim B
ended med
Director
n@slocity.o
e replacem
vehicles t
ctured by
ditional ve
Capital Pr
nt Transit
ober 1, 20
ed.
acility fund
ment proje
us Radio
equipmen
ompleted o
final repor
t Facility
safety an
at 29 Prad
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
ity.org) as
his interim
t this inter
nt is an op
ur commun
is is not th
aunching th
ving the ne
Bochum De
ical leave
and will b
org or 805
ment upda
that are b
Gillig was
ehicles hav
rojects:
Facility p
12 after th
ding was u
ect.
Replacem
t has been
on April 13
rts sent to C
Safety-S
nd security
do Road. Th
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
s Interim D
assignmen
rim assignm
pportunity
nity, Counc
he first ste
he recruitm
ext director
eputy Dire
and Jake
be assistin
-781-7200
tes: The C
beyond the
s delivered
ve been ord
project (FT
he project
used to com
ment proje
n fully inst
3, 2013. T
CAL-EMA
Security p
y improve
he grant fu
sportation Commi
docx
Director o
nt, Carrie w
ment will l
for an exp
cil, process
ep to conso
ment for a
r hired by
ector of PW
Hudson h
ng Carrie M
0
City is in t
eir 12 yea
d and plac
dered and d
TA 5307)
has been
mplete the P
ect (CAL-
talled and
he project
A.
project (C
ments to
unds were r
ittees\MTC Comm
of Public
will also co
last throug
perienced
ses, and fi
olidating t
Public Wo
the end of
W will be
has assume
Mattingly.
the process
ar useful
ced into se
delivery an
This grant
completed
Prop 1B &
-EMA fun
communic
was offic
CAL-EMA
the existin
received o
mittee\FY 2013\JU
Works effe
ontinue as
gh Decemb
leader wh
nances to
the two de
orks Direct
f this year.”
out startin
ed the pos
Jake can
s of replac
life. A 40
ervice on J
nticipated b
t is expecte
d and the f
& CAL EM
nded $209
cation site
ially close
A funded
ng SLO T
on June 4, 2
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
fective July
our Utiliti
ber 2012.
ho understa
assist duri
epartments
tor in late
”
ng July 5, 2
sition of ac
be reache
cing three 1
0’ Low F
June 20, 2
by June 20
ed to be cl
funds are f
MA transit r
9,000).Bus
improvem
ed on May
$48,000)
Transit fac
2012 and s
GENDA
7
y 12,
ies
This
ands
ing a
s. In
July
2012
cting
ed at
1997
Floor
2012.
013.
osed
fully
radio
and
ments
y 30th
will
cility
staff
17
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
is evalu
fencing
Bus Sto
has bee
benches
propose
and oth
camera)
July or
New Bu
SLO Tr
propose
project
(AVL)
approve
Council
Novemb
The Do
A prese
positive
to their
advance
project
FTA Fu
House
This aft
the Mo
legislati
conferen
the conf
The fin
Leaders
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
uating the
improvem
op Impro
en receive
s, kiosks,
ed improve
her cosmet
) has been
early Augu
us Stop S
ransit syste
es to install
will also i
signs and
ed by the S
l on June
ber 2012 b
owntown T
entation wa
e comment
r Board in
e to enviro
is availabl
unding AP
and Senat
ternoon, bo
oving Ah
ion, the su
nce report
ference rep
nal legislat
s from both
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
facility s
ments.
vement p
ed for imp
lighting et
ements and
tic improv
approved
ust with th
Safety and
em has ap
l solar ligh
include the
d wireless
SLOCOG
5, 2012 a
before it ca
Transit Ce
as provided
ts from Cou
n June 201
onmental re
e at the SL
PTA Legis
te Vote to
oth the Ho
ead for P
urface tran
by a vote
port by a v
tive details
h houses ha
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
safety need
roject (PT
provement
tc. Staff is
d has ident
ements. A
by the Cit
e total cost
d Security
pproximate
hting inside
e installati
video mo
Board on
and is awa
an move for
enter Stud
d to SLO C
uncil whic
12. The H
eview if fu
LOCOG we
slative upd
Pass Surf
ouse and Se
Progress
nsportation
of 373 to
ote of 74 t
s have bee
ave asserte
sportation Commi
docx
ds such a
TMISEA-P
s to exist
s in the pr
tified the D
A 12 month
ty manage
t is estimat
y Project
ely forty-ni
e some she
ion of elec
nitoring sy
April 4, 20
aiting the s
rward.
dy
Council on
ch will be p
iguera Str
unding is a
ebsite at w
date June
face Trans
enate voted
in the 21
n authoriz
o 52 and sh
to 19.
en availab
ed that the
ittees\MTC Comm
as security
Prop 1B fu
ting bus s
rocess of
DTC as on
h DTC pil
er and shou
ted not to e
(CAL-EM
ine (49) b
elters or on
ctronic Au
ystems at
012. This p
sale of Sta
n April 17,
provided to
reet Altern
available. M
www.slocog
29, 2012
sportation
d to pass t
1st Centu
ation bill.
hortly there
ble since e
agreement
mittee\FY 2013\JU
y cameras
unded $25
stops inclu
evaluating
ne location
lot camera
uld be com
exceed $6,
MA funded
bus shelters
n existing s
utomatic V
selected s
project wa
ate bonds
, 2012 and
o SLOCOG
native #6 w
More infor
gtransit.com
n Conferen
the Confer
ury (MAP
The Hou
eafter, the
early yeste
t represent
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
and gate
5,689) Fun
uding shel
g bus stops
n for repain
a project (
mpleted in
,000.
$32,140)
s. This pro
sign poles.
Vehicle Loc
stops and
as approve
most likel
d received
G and repo
was chose
rmation on
m
nce Repor
rence Repo
P-21/H.R.4
use passed
Senate pa
erday morn
ts a careful
GENDA
8
and
nding
lters,
s for
nting
(1-IP
Late
The
oject
The
cator
was
ed by
ly in
very
orted
en to
n this
rt
ort to
348)
d the
assed
ning.
lly-
18
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
develop
bill, M
extensio
Infrastru
The Ho
surface
enrollm
Presiden
Based
summar
agreeme
Overall
The fina
Program
and $1
Accoun
$8.595
each fis
based o
Formula
Urbaniz
federal
billion
This co
Reverse
5307 fo
The bill
Bus and
below c
Senate
reported
Capital
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
ped, biparti
oving Ahe
on of cur
ucture (T&
ouse of Rep
transporta
ment of th
ntial signin
on our in
ry of the
ent that are
Funding L
al conferen
ms, providi
0.695 bill
nt of the H
billion in
scal year.
n current l
a Grant Pro
zed Area G
investmen
in FY 201
ompares to
e Commut
ormula prog
l authorize
d Bus Fac
current law
bill had o
d from com
Investmen
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
isan comp
ead for Pr
rrent law,
&I) Commi
presentativ
ation law
he bill (a
ng ceremon
nitial revie
key poli
e of the int
Levels
nce agreem
ing a total
lion in FY
Highway T
FY 2014,
The bill a
aw.
ograms
Grants (Se
nt in public
13 and $4.
o an estima
e (JARC)
gram.
es $422 mi
cilities For
w ($984 mi
originally p
mmittee an
nt Grants a
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
promise, in
rogress in
, and lan
ittee’s bill
ves also vo
in order t
a formal,
ny, if desir
ew of the
icy and p
terest to AP
ment provi
l of $10.57
Y 2014. F
Trust Fund
with $2.1
lso separat
c. 5307, 5
c transporta
.459 billio
ated $4.55
program a
illion in FY
rmula prog
illion in FY
proposed,
nd only $7
ccount wh
sportation Commi
docx
nvolving g
n the 21st
nguage in
that was n
oted to pas
to provide
but neces
red.
conferenc
programma
PTA and it
des for a l
78 billion
Funding au
amounts
billion aut
tely extend
5336) conti
ation. The
n in FY 2
52 billion
activities w
Y 2013 an
gram. The
Y 2012), w
with essen
5 million a
hen S. 1813
ittees\MTC Comm
ive-and-tak
Century
n the Hou
not conside
ss a one-w
e a “cushi
ssary legi
ce agreem
atic eleme
ts member
limited inc
in authoriz
uthorized
to $8.478
thorized fr
ds the auth
inue to be
conferenc
2014 for u
in FY 201
will now b
nd $427.8 m
funding l
was a majo
ntially no
authorized
3 was passe
mittee\FY 2013\JU
ke betwee
(MAP-21)
use Trans
ered on the
week extens
ion” to fa
islative pr
ment, the f
ents of th
rs:
crease for F
zed fundin
from the
billion in
rom the G
horization
e the large
ce report al
urbanized a
12. The Jo
be funded
million in
level, whil
or change
funding a
d as a taked
ed by the S
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
en the Sena
), the Hou
sportation
House flo
sion of cur
acilitate pr
rocess) an
following
he confer
Federal Tra
ng in FY 2
Mass Tra
n FY 2013
eneral Fun
s for FY 2
st program
llocates $4
area progr
ob Access
under the
FY 2014 f
le significa
from wha
as the bill
down from
Senate. The
GENDA
9
ate’s
use’s
and
oor.
rrent
roper
nd a
is a
rence
ansit
2013
ansit
and
nd in
2012
m for
4.398
ams.
and
Sec.
for a
antly
at the
was
m the
e
19
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
new pro
program
from eli
allocatio
based o
The con
Density
million
percent.
Consist
Elderly
combin
mobility
under S
availabl
The con
(Sec. 53
Rural F
in FY 2
provide
under th
The bil
Parks P
Operatin
As reco
languag
greater
assistan
conferen
systems
periods
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
ogram is
m in curren
igibility, as
on is mad
n populatio
nference ag
y States and
in FY 20
.
ent with
and Disab
ed into a s
y of senio
Sec. 5310)
le for elder
nference r
311), to fu
ormula pro
2014 as com
es for rura
his section
l repeals t
rogram.
ng Assista
ommended
ge. This pro
than 200
nce if thei
nce report
s to utilize
of high un
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
a formula
nt law) an
s proposed
de availabl
on and serv
greement r
d Growing
13 and $52
the APTA
bled (Sec.
single prog
ors and ind
. The cons
rly and disa
report also
und public
ogram is fu
mpared to
l job acce
.
the Clean
ance/“100 B
by APTA
ovision all
0,000 to u
ir system
t does no
e a portion
nemployme
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
a grant pro
nd does no
d in the Ho
le to all s
vice factor
retains the
g States. Th
25.9 millio
A recomm
. 5310) an
gram that
dividuals w
solidated p
abled trans
o authorize
transporta
unded at $
an estima
ess and rev
Fuels Form
Bus” Rule
A, the confe
ows transit
utilize port
operates
t include
n of their 5
ent.
sportation Commi
docx
ogram (as
ot restrict
use T&I C
states, with
rs.
Sec. 5340
he program
on in FY 2
mendations
nd New Fr
will fund
with disab
program w
sportation
es increase
ation activ
599.5 mill
ated $547.3
verse com
mula Prog
erence repo
t systems i
tions of t
100 or fe
language
5307 fundi
ittees\MTC Comm
opposed
agencies t
Committee
h the rem
0 formula
m is author
2014, an in
s for prog
reedom (S
activities
bilities (the
will increas
programs.
ed funding
vities in rur
lion in FY
3 million in
mmute activ
gram as w
ort adopts
in urbanize
their 5307
ewer buse
that wou
ing for ope
mittee\FY 2013\JU
to a discr
that operat
bill, H.R.
maining fun
grant prog
rized at a l
ncrease of
gram cons
Sec. 5317)
designed t
e new pro
se the leve
g for Rura
ral areas. T
2013 and
n FY 2012
vities to n
well as the
proposed
ed areas wi
7 funding
es in peak
uld have a
erating ass
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
retionary g
te rail serv
7. A minim
nds distrib
grams for H
level of $5
f more than
solidation,
Programs
to enhance
ogram rem
el of resou
al Area Gr
The Sec. 5
$607.8 mi
2. The bill
now be fun
Transit In
“100 bus r
ith populat
for opera
k service.
allowed tra
sistance du
GENDA
10
grant
vices
mum
buted
High
518.7
n 13
the
s are
e the
mains
urces
rants
5311
llion
also
nded
n the
rule”
tions
ating
The
ansit
uring
20
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
State of
The bill
the curr
distribu
systems
transpor
rapid tr
recipien
capital
investm
factors
under w
fixed gu
a formu
40 perc
segmen
The me
2014 fo
be distr
the basi
transpor
vehicles
motorbu
Fixed G
The con
2014 fo
$1.955
S.1813’
report’s
streamli
develop
Admini
expande
process
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
f Good Rep
l creates a
rent Fixed
ute $2.1 bi
s that use
rtation use
ransit syst
nts would
asset inve
ment priorit
used in th
which 60 p
uideway ro
ula that dis
cent on fix
nts in reven
easure also
or a High I
ributed 60
is of direct
rtation tha
s (HOV la
us services
Guideway C
nference re
or Fixed G
billion au
’s Capital I
s Fixed G
ines the pr
pment and
istration. B
ed use of w
es. The con
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
pair Grant
a new “Sta
d Guidewa
llion in ea
e and occ
e, rail syste
tems. Fun
be require
entories an
ties. The b
he rail tier
percent is d
oute miles.
stributes 60
xed guidew
nue service
o authorize
Intensity M
percent on
ional route
at is provid
anes), and
s have been
Capital Inv
eport autho
Guideway
uthorized in
Investment
Guideway
roject appr
d providi
Both the
warrants to
nference re
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
Program
ate of Goo
ay Modern
ach of fisc
cupy a se
ems, fixed
nding coul
ed to deve
nd conditio
bill would
of the urb
distributed
It would a
0 percent o
way direct
e for at leas
es $60.9 m
Motorbus S
n the basis
e miles. Th
ded on a fa
d would b
n in revenu
vestment G
orizes $1.9
Capital I
n FY 201
t Grants pr
Capital I
roval proc
ing for q
House an
o expedite
eport adop
sportation Commi
docx
d Repair”
nization pr
cal years 2
eparate rig
catenary
d be used
elop asset
on assessm
apportion
ban formul
on revenu
apportion t
of funds b
tional rout
st 7 years w
million in F
State of Go
s of vehicle
his program
facility with
e limited
ue service f
Grants and P
907 billion
nvestment
2. The Co
rovisions, w
Investment
cess, elimin
quicker r
nd Senate
e the proje
pts the Sena
ittees\MTC Comm
grant prog
rogram. T
2013 and
ght of wa
systems, p
d for a v
manageme
ments, dec
n 50 perce
la program
ue vehicle
the other 5
ased on ve
te miles.
would be e
FY 2013 a
ood Repai
e revenue
m would pr
h access f
to segmen
for at least
Program S
for each o
t Grants. T
onferees ag
with modif
t Grants
nating dup
review by
New Sta
ct rating, e
ate’s langu
mittee\FY 2013\JU
gram that
The new p
2014 to fi
ay for exc
passenger f
variety of
ent system
cision supp
ent of the
m in effect
miles and
50 percent
ehicle reve
In all cas
eligible for
and $61.7
ir program
miles and
rovide fund
for other h
nts where
t 7 years.
Streamlinin
of Fiscal Y
This level
greed to a
fications. T
provision
plicative st
y the Fe
arts provis
evaluation
uage expan
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
would rep
program w
fixed guide
clusive pu
ferries and
activities
ms that inc
port tools,
total based
t for FY 2
d 40 percen
of funds u
enue miles
es, only t
funding.
million in
m. Funds w
40 percen
ding for pu
high-occupa
high-inten
ng
Years 2013
l is below
adopt muc
The confer
reforms
teps in pro
ederal Tra
sions inclu
n, and appr
nding the u
GENDA
11
place
would
eway
ublic
d bus
and
clude
and
d on
2011,
nt on
under
s and
those
n FY
would
nt on
ublic
ancy
nsity
3 and
w the
ch of
rence
and
oject
ansit
uded
roval
use
21
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
of warra
percent
fixed gu
well as
capacity
The Co
operate
small s
systems
peak pe
Public T
Include
transit s
national
perform
a nation
other de
transpor
respons
transit f
plan ba
required
safety o
A formu
develop
state sa
approve
conduct
Federal
oversigh
oversee
authorit
noncom
funding
actions.
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
ants for pr
of total pr
uideway c
programs
y projects a
onferees m
in right-o
tarts fund
s where a m
eriods.
Transporta
d in the r
safety prop
l safety pla
mance stand
nal safety c
esignated p
rtation sys
ible for s
funding are
ased on se
d to have a
oversight ag
ula grant f
p and carry
afety over
e, oversee
t triennial
Transit A
ht will be c
impleme
ty to audi
mpliant wi
g or require
In the eve
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
rojects with
roject costs
apital proj
of interrel
achieve at
make corrid
f-ways ded
ding, and t
majority of
ation Safety
report is a
posals. The
an for all m
dards for a
certificatio
personnel,
stems and
afety over
e required
et criteria.
an approve
gency whi
funding pr
y out state
rsight agen
and enfor
safety aud
Administra
carried out
entation by
t their act
th safety
e up to 100
ent that a st
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
h a New S
s. The bill
jects, smal
lated proje
least a 10
dor-based b
dicated exc
they limit
f the projec
y Program
a negotiate
e provision
modes of p
all rolling s
n training
who cond
employee
rsight. Und
to establish
Those st
ed state saf
ch assume
rogram for
e safety ov
ncies are
rce implem
dits and to
ation (FTA
t by the sta
y those s
tivities. In
requireme
0 percent o
tate safety
sportation Commi
docx
Starts share
modifies e
ll starts, an
ects. The c
percent in
bus rapid
clusively t
eligibility
ct operates
ed compro
n grants au
public tran
stock not o
program f
duct safety
es of publi
der this p
h, and hav
tates with
fety oversig
s oversigh
up to 80 p
versight pr
required,
mentation
o provide a
A) and oth
ate safety o
tate safety
n the even
ents, the
of Federal
oversight
ittees\MTC Comm
e not excee
eligibility
nd core ca
onference
ncrease in c
transit (BR
to public tr
y for BRT
s in a dedic
omise betw
uthority to
nsportation
otherwise r
for Federal
audits and
ic transpor
provision,
ve certified
rail fixed
ght progra
ht related re
percent in
rograms h
among o
of transit
annual saf
hers. Whi
oversight en
y oversigh
nt that a r
Secretary
funds be u
agency is
mittee\FY 2013\JU
eding $100
standards t
apacity imp
report req
capacity al
RT) projec
ransportati
T new sta
cated right-
ween Sena
the Secret
n, to set m
regulated a
l and State
d examina
rtation age
all recipie
d, a compre
d guidewa
am that esta
esponsibili
federal m
has been au
other thing
agency sa
fety status
le transit
ntities, the
ht entities
recipient i
may wit
used for co
found to b
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
0 million o
to include
provement
quires that
ong a corr
cts that do
ion eligible
arts fundin
-of-way du
ate and H
tary to crea
minimum sa
and to estab
employee
ations of pu
encies dire
ents of fed
ehensive sa
ay systems
ablishes a
ities
match dolla
uthorized.
gs, to rev
afety plan
reports to
agency sa
e Secretary
s and has
s found to
thhold Fed
orrective sa
be
GENDA
12
or 50
new
ts, as
core
idor.
o not
e for
ng to
uring
ouse
ate a
afety
blish
es, or
ublic
ectly
deral
afety
s are
state
ars to
The
view,
s, to
o the
afety
y will
the
o be
deral
afety
22
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
Noncom
limited
Federal
Additio
or unlin
establish
Asset M
The bill
transpor
Transit
to deve
conditio
since th
term ‘s
conditio
Metropo
The Con
plannin
Plannin
issues
perform
all MPO
of publ
modes
pilot pr
projects
assist w
projects
Researc
Researc
existing
continu
to demo
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
mpliant, th
to issuing
funds.
nally, a w
nked passe
h a joint ov
Managemen
l also requ
rtation ass
agencies w
lop capital
on of their
he last repo
state of g
on of capita
olitan and
nference R
g at the lo
ng Organiz
such as s
mance repo
Os, designa
lic agencie
of transpo
rogram to
s. The pilo
with costs
s or core ca
ch and Oth
ch, Develo
g research p
ed progres
onstration a
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
he Secretar
directives
aiver prov
enger trips
versight en
nt
uires the es
sets to imp
will be req
l asset inv
system as
ort. The Se
ood repair
al assets.
Statewide
Report cont
ocal, regio
zations (M
safety and
rt. Additio
ated as Tra
es (includi
ortation in
fund plann
ot is funde
of comp
apacity imp
er Transit
pment and
program b
ss, with a g
and deploy
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
ry is gran
, requiring
vision for a
as well as
ntity was a
stablishmen
prove safet
quired to es
ventories a
s a whole,
ecretary of
r,’ includi
Planning
tains key p
onal and s
MPOs) to
d state of
onally, the
ansportatio
ng transit
the metrop
ning effort
ed at $10 m
prehensive
provement
Provisions
d Demonst
y creating
goal of tak
yment in th
sportation Commi
docx
nted a ran
g more freq
agencies no
s a provisi
lso authori
nt of a sys
ty and inc
stablish an
nd conditi
with descr
f Transport
ing object
provisions
tate level.
establish
good rep
final langu
on Manage
agencies)
politan are
ts for Tran
million in
planning
t projects fu
s
tration ($7
a clearly d
king an ide
he field. Th
ittees\MTC Comm
nge of opt
quent over
ot exceedin
on allowin
ized.
stem to mo
crease relia
nd use an a
ion assessm
riptions of
tation is al
tive stand
intended t
The repo
performan
pair. This
uage mand
ement Area
that adm
ea. Lastly,
nsit-Orient
FY 2013
for new
funded with
0 million)
delineated
ea from the
he program
mittee\FY 2013\JU
tions, incl
rsight and/o
ng a set am
ng multi-st
onitor and
ability and
asset manag
ments, and
f the chang
lso require
dards for m
to enhance
ort requires
nce targets
will incl
dates that t
as, must in
minister or
, the repor
ted Develo
and 2014
fixed gui
h federal d
-- The bil
pipeline w
e research
m specifica
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
luding but
or withhol
mount of m
tate system
manage pu
d performa
gement sy
d report on
ge in cond
d to define
measuring
e transporta
s Metropo
s that add
lude a sy
the structur
nclude offi
operate m
rt establish
opment (T
. Funding
ideway ca
dollars.
ll modifies
with criteria
phase thro
lly provide
GENDA
13
t not
lding
miles
ms to
ublic
ance.
stem
n the
dition
e the
g the
ation
olitan
dress
stem
re of
cials
major
hes a
TOD)
will
apital
s the
a for
ough
es
23
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
funding
benefit
dedicate
availabl
the con
facilitie
The bil
(TCRP)
had bee
the auth
Technic
creates
provide
effectiv
recipien
authoriz
standard
other su
assist gr
Public
Emerge
authoriz
sums a
transpor
and fac
serious
Training
Human
Transpo
and ass
resource
Transit
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
g for demo
public tran
ed to low
le for the a
nstruction o
s to accom
l provides
), funding
en cut by 3
horizing co
cal Assistan
a new s
es grants
vely and ef
nts admin
zes the FT
ds by the p
ubjects and
rant recipie
Transpor
ency Relief
zed under t
s necessar
rtation sys
cilities tha
damage as
g – The b
Resources
ortation W
sist the de
e activitie
Institute (N
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
onstration
nsportation
or no em
acquisition
of facilitie
mmodate th
a small i
it at $7 m
35 percent
ommittees s
nce and St
ection on
for activi
fficiently p
ister fund
TA to cont
public tran
d authorize
ents follow
rtation Em
f Program
the bill, wi
ry.” The n
stems in pa
t are in d
s a result o
bill author
s and Train
Workforce D
evelopmen
s within t
NTI) is aut
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
and deplo
n. It also c
mission pu
n of low or
es for such
he use of lo
ncrease to
million annu
in the FY
sought to a
tandards D
Technica
ities that
provide pu
ds receive
tinue maki
nsportation
es the Secr
wing a com
mergency
patterned a
ith an open
new progr
aying for p
danger of
f an emerg
rizes $5 m
ning (Wor
Developm
nt of inno
the public
thorized at
sportation Commi
docx
oyment of
creates a s
ublic transp
no emissi
h vehicles,
ow or no em
o the Trans
ually out o
2012 Tran
add some f
Developme
al Assistan
help pub
ublic trans
ed under
ing grants
n industry
retary to fu
mpetitive pr
Relief Pr
after the si
n ended Ge
ram is des
protecting,
suffering
gency.
million ann
kforce Dev
ent Progra
ovative wo
transporta
$5 million
ittees\MTC Comm
f products
section of t
portation
on vehicle
and the r
mission ve
sit Cooper
of the Gen
nsportation
funding ba
ent ($7 mil
nce and S
blic transp
sportation
this chap
for the de
related to
fund techni
rocess.
rogram –
imilar Fede
eneral Fun
signed to
, repairing,
serious da
nually from
velopment
am will be
orkforce d
ation indu
n from the
mittee\FY 2013\JU
s and serv
the deploy
vehicles, m
es and relat
rehabilitati
ehicles.
rative Rese
neral Fund
n Appropri
ack.
llion annua
Standards
portation
service an
pter. This
evelopmen
procureme
ical assista
– Addition
eral Highw
nd authoriza
assist Stat
, or replac
amage or
m the Gen
t). The Inn
e a progra
developmen
ustry. Also
Mass Tran
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
vices that
yment prog
making gr
ted equipm
ion of exis
earch Prog
d. The prog
iations bill
ally) – The
Developm
systems m
nd helps g
section
nt of volun
ent, safety
ance center
nally, a
way progra
ation for “
tes and pu
cing equipm
have suff
neral Fund
novative Pu
am to prom
nt and hu
o, the Nati
nsit Accou
GENDA
14
may
gram
rants
ment,
sting
gram
gram
, but
e bill
ment,
more
grant
also
ntary
y and
rs to
new
am is
such
ublic
ment
fered
d for
ublic
mote
uman
ional
unt.
24
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
Bus Tes
Facility
does ca
a Bus T
testing
scoring
Bus Axl
the curr
buses, t
single-a
limits o
Buy Am
domesti
docume
for high
Buy Am
most o
segmen
Transit
would h
benefit
Finance
and a nu
parity fo
Rail Tit
Althoug
proposa
the fina
passeng
become
languag
commut
all PTC
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
sting Facil
y (the Sena
ll for the S
Test Pass/
facility, bu
system un
le Weight –
rent, tempo
the Confer
axle weigh
f less than
merica – W
ic content
entation an
hway, trans
merica requ
f the Sen
ntation lang
Benefits –
have exten
for the tra
e Title. De
umber of o
or transit b
tle – Positiv
gh rail titl
als, an agre
al conferen
ger railroad
e certified b
ge in both
ter railroad
C related pr
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
lity – The b
ate bill had
Secretary o
/Fail stand
us manufa
nder this pa
– Based on
orary singl
rees adopte
ht exemptio
24,000 po
While neith
t requirem
nd transpar
sit, and rai
uirements.
nate’s Buy
guage.
–The final
nded for o
ansit comm
spite the s
other advo
benefits at t
ve Train C
es were c
eement cou
nce agreem
ds to main
by the Sur
h the Hou
ds in the p
rovisions w
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
bill mainta
d proposed
of Transpo
dard. The
cturers, an
aragraph.
n similar pr
le-axle we
ed the Hou
on and the
ounds, on th
her the Hou
ments for
rency requ
il projects
With rega
y America
l conferenc
only the 2
muter tax b
staunch adv
cates in th
the level o
Control and
ontained i
uld not be
ment. The
ntain at lea
face Trans
use and S
process of
were struck
sportation Commi
docx
ains an auth
d up to thr
rtation to p
Secretary
nd transit a
rovisions i
eight exem
use provisi
State enfo
he intersta
use nor Se
rolling st
uirements o
and prohib
ard to tran
a provision
ce agreem
2012 calen
benefit, as
vocacy of
he House a
f parking b
d STB Lice
in both the
negotiated
Senate S
ast $200 m
sportation B
Senate pro
implement
k from the f
ittees\MTC Comm
horization
ree addition
promulgate
is require
agencies to
in both S.1
mption for t
ion that m
orcement b
ate highway
enate bills
tock, both
of current
bited proje
nsit project
n, but did
ment does
ndar year
s had been
Senator C
and Senate,
benefits wa
ensing
e House a
d and the ra
Sec. 35601
million in l
Board was
oposals to
ting Positi
final confe
mittee\FY 2013\JU
for a sing
nal testing
e regulatio
d to work
o develop
1813 and H
transit and
makes perm
ban of sing
y.
included
h bills str
Buy Amer
ect segmen
s, the Con
d not inc
not retain
parity wit
n provided
Charles Sch
, the provi
as not retai
and Senate
ail title wa
1 provision
liability ins
s eliminate
o provide
ive Train C
erence repo
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
gle Bus Tes
g facilities)
ons to estab
k with the
the bus m
H.R.7 to ex
d over-the-
manent both
gle-axle we
changes to
engthened
rica provis
ntation to a
nferees ado
lude the
language
th the par
d in the Se
humer (D-
sion exten
ined.
e authoriza
as deleted f
n requiring
surance an
ed. And des
flexibility
Control (P
ort. Also
GENDA
15
sting
) but
blish
bus
model
xtend
-road
h the
eight
o the
the
sions
avoid
opted
anti-
that
rking
enate
-NY)
nding
ation
from
g all
nd to
spite
y to
TC),
25
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
eliminat
Preserv
related t
Highwa
The bill
provisio
projects
for the
transit p
FY 201
Quality
be used
the bill
Recreat
program
million
allocate
funding
(includi
to opt-o
Americ
(TIFIA)
Both o
expande
program
The Co
modific
by the
applicat
the TIF
2013, th
House a
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
ted as a re
ation, Exp
to Amtrak
ay Title Tra
l authorize
ons that im
s. The bill
Surface Tr
projects to
13 and $2
(CMAQ)
d for diesel
consolidat
tional Trai
m, however
annually.
ed to MPO
g for TA a
ing road an
out of TA-a
a Fast F
)
of the ini
ed TIFIA,
m, increasin
onferees
cations esta
U.S. De
tion proces
IA program
his represe
and Senate
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
esult of the
ansion, an
.
ansit-relate
es several p
mpact the
provides $
ransportati
o be funded
.28 billion
program. A
l exhaust re
tes the Tra
ils progra
r, overall f
Under th
s and 50pe
activities a
nd bridge p
activities d
orward/Tr
itial Hous
, the popu
ng funding
largely ad
ablishing a
partment
ss report b
m at $750
ents a $250
e bills.
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
e rail title b
d Develop
ed Provisio
programs u
availabilit
$10.2 billio
ion Progra
d with ST
n in FY 2
A provisio
etrofits is n
ansportation
ams into a
funding fo
he new TA
ercent to st
and devote
projects). F
deeply conc
ansportatio
se and Se
ular Feder
g from $12
dopted th
application
of Transp
by DOT. T
million in
0 million r
sportation Commi
docx
being drop
ment Act o
ons
under the H
ty of fund
on in FY 2
m (STP) a
TP dollars.
014 for th
on mandatin
not include
n Enhance
a new “T
r these act
A program
tates, howe
e funding
Funding re
cerns trans
on Infrast
enate auth
ral surfac
20 million
he Senate’
n procedur
portation
The confer
FY 2013
reduction f
ittees\MTC Comm
pped was t
of 2012, w
Highway T
ding for tr
2013 and $
and mainta
Further, $
he Conges
ng a perce
ed in the c
ements, Sa
Transportat
tivities is r
m, 50 perc
ever, states
to other
eductions a
sportation m
tructure F
horization
e transpor
in FY 201
’s TIFIA
es to impo
(DOT) an
rence repor
and $1 bil
from the le
mittee\FY 2013\JU
the Nationa
which inclu
Title and i
ransit and
$10.3 billio
ains langua
$2.26 billio
stion Mitig
entage of C
conference
afe Route t
tion Alter
reduced by
cent of fu
s may chos
transportat
and the ab
mobility ad
Finance an
proposals
rtation cre
12 to $1 bi
provision
ose deadlin
nd requiri
rt authoriz
llion in FY
evel includ
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
al Rail Sys
uded provis
includes po
transit-rel
on in FY 2
age that all
on is alloc
gation and
CMAQ fun
report. La
o Schools,
rnatives (T
y roughly $
unding wil
se not to ut
tion initiat
bility for S
dvocates.
nd Innova
s significa
edit assist
illion annu
n, with s
nes for act
ng an an
zes funding
Y 2014. For
ded in both
GENDA
16
stem
sions
olicy
lated
2014
lows
cated
d Air
nding
astly,
, and
TA)”
$300
ll be
tilize
tives
tates
ation
antly
tance
ually.
some
tions
nnual
g for
r FY
h the
26
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
SLO T
Admini
2011-12
2012. T
register
grant is
reimbur
apportio
Septemb
State T
Annual
the upc
and Sta
estimate
SLOCO
and belo
2012/20
The Cou
County
includes
contrast
$10,686
the larg
Reserve
10% hig
BACKG
The TD
LTF, is
derived
distribu
seven
Transpo
funds pr
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
Transit FT
istration (F
2 FTA gra
This grant u
and will a
s expected
rsement (
onment ap
ber 30, 20
TDA Fundi
lly SLOCO
oming fisc
ate Transi
es to SLO
OG Board
ow are hig
013 Estima
unty Audit
Auditor’s
s estimate
t, the es
6,000. This
ge carryov
e of $600,0
gher.
GROUND
DA provide
s derived f
from the
uted to the
cities, th
ortation Se
rovide off-
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
TA Grant
FTA) final
ant (CA-90
uses the pr
amend the
to be exec
(ECHO) t
pproval co
12 or later
ing update
OG apporti
cal year. T
it Assistan
OCOG. T
met on A
hlights.
ates for LT
tor LTF es
estimate i
ed 12/13 s
timate fo
s allocation
ver that is
000, the ac
D
es two sou
from ¼ cen
e statewide
region by
he County
ervices Ag
-the-top fun
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
Status: A
apportion
0-Y955) fo
reviously a
e grant wh
cuted in la
three day
ould be de
.
e
ions Trans
These fund
nce (STA
The State
April 4th 20
TF
stimates fo
is $11,846,
sales tax
or 2011/20
n will not b
not expe
ctual alloca
urces of fun
nt collecte
e sales tax
y the State
y, SLOC
gency (CT
nding for p
sportation Commi
docx
As a resul
nment the
or Departm
approved 7
en the fina
ate July or
ys after i
elayed unt
sportation D
ds include L
A). The C
Controlle
012 and ap
or 2012/201
,100, whic
revenue a
012 LTF
be the new
ected in th
ations to ju
nding for
ed in retail
x on dies
e and alloc
OG, and
TSA) for t
planning/a
ittees\MTC Comm
lt of the D
transit ma
ment of La
75% fundi
al apportio
August an
it is offi
til the end
Developm
Local Tran
County Au
er provide
pproved th
13 are high
ch is an 11
and an op
used fo
w base for
he future.
urisdiction
transportat
l sales tax
sel fuel. B
cated by S
Ride-On
the San Lu
administrat
mittee\FY 2013\JU
Delayed F
anager sub
abor review
ing posted
onment is
nd will all
ficially ex
d of the F
ment Act (T
nsportation
uditor subm
es STA e
he FY 2012
her than 20
% increase
pening cas
or apporti
subsequen
With a p
ns are betw
tion progra
xes. The se
Both of th
SLOCOG
n – the
uis Obispo
ion. The re
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
Federal Tra
bmitted the
w on June
in the Fed
approved.
low for fed
xecuted. F
Federal FY
TDA) fund
n Funds (L
mits the
estimates.
2-13 estim
011/2012 –
e. This am
sh balance
ionments
nt years, du
proposed F
ween 8.7%
ams. The
econd, STA
hese funds
to each of
Consolid
o region.
emaining L
GENDA
17
ansit
e FY
e 22,
deral
The
deral
Final
Y on
s for
LTF)
LTF
The
mates
– the
mount
e. In
was
ue to
Fund
% and
first,
A, is
s are
f the
dated
LTF
LTF
27
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
is appor
and bik
The sta
approve
DISCU
Based o
maintain
in antic
reserve
jurisdict
Availab
This is
Pedestri
FY11/1
State T
2012/20
budget
consiste
time tha
Propos
• L
• S
If the e
maintain
costs an
SLORT
The San
Advisor
unanim
recomm
procure
replacem
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
rtioned acc
keway/pede
ate budget
ed and the
USSION
on the Cou
ning a 5%
cipated rev
would be
tions.
ble for Ap
the amou
ian and Bi
2 amount o
Transit As
013 was re
is adopte
ent with th
at a State b
ed SLO C
LTF-$1,91
STA- $229
estimated
ning the c
nd volatility
TA Budget
n Luis Obi
ry Comm
ously reco
mending th
ement proj
ment of RT
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
cording to
estrian faci
includes
STA amou
unty Audi
% ($600,000
venues and
the first lin
portionme
unt availab
keways ap
of $9,136,2
ssistance (
eceived. Th
ed in June
he propose
budget is ad
City Alloca
7,329 whic
,755 which
amounts a
urrent serv
y.
t
ispo Regio
mittee (RT
ommended
at any cost
ject (using
TA’s plann
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
population
ilities. STA
STA fund
unt is prelim
tor’s recom
0) fund res
d unexpec
ne of defen
ent to Jur
ble to app
pportionme
249.
(STA) - $1
he exact am
e 2012. T
ed Governo
dopted, the
ation
ch represen
h represent
are realize
vice levels
nal Transi
AC) met
d adoption
t savings t
g Proposi
ned capital
sportation Commi
docx
n for publi
A funds ar
ding for 2
minary at t
mmendatio
serve to “p
cted expen
nse in case
isdictions
portion to
ent. This am
1,639,855
mounts of S
The total
or’s Budg
ese funds a
nts an incr
ts an increa
d this wil
s especially
t Authority
on Apri
of the R
that might
tion 1B f
project-re
ittees\MTC Comm
ic transit, s
re used for
2012/13; th
this time.
on, the SL
provide for
nditures. St
e of any ac
$9,997,51
jurisdictio
mount is $
In January
STA will b
amounts
et for FY
are uncerta
ease of $17
ase of $48
ll greatly a
y in an era
y’s (SLOR
il 18, 20
RTA FY 12
be realized
funds) be
elated use o
mittee\FY 2013\JU
street/road
r public tra
he budget
LOCOG B
r unexpecte
taff also n
ctual TDA
15
ons, and i
$861,266 g
y 2012, th
be known w
recommen
2012-13,
ain.
75,072 or
,187 or 27
assist SLO
a of contin
RTA) Regio
12 and t
2-13 budg
d as part o
e consider
of STA fun
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
improvem
ansit purpo
has not b
oard appro
ed fluctuat
noted that
shortfall to
it includes
greater than
he estimate
when the S
nded here
but until
10.05%
%
O Transit
nuing high
onal Techn
the comm
get, while
of the RTA
ed for pa
nds. As you
GENDA
18
ments
oses.
been
oved
tions
this
o the
s the
n the
e for
State
are
such
with
fuel
nical
mittee
also
A bus
artial
u
28
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
know, S
capital p
Specific
STA fun
Proposi
non-use
RTA B
purchas
RTA s
distribu
SLORT
mainten
months
SLO M
events
Assistan
in limit
Ridersh
316 pas
previou
rides on
SLOCO
Project
Populat
pressure
strategic
and emp
has mea
aging re
need for
access.
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
STA funds
projects.
cally, (See
nds for cap
ition 1B-fu
ed STA fu
Board’s di
sing the mo
staff conc
ution of unu
TA is als
nance fac
s.
Marathon &
had major
nt Dee Law
ting any n
hip data on
ssengers w
us year. SL
n Earth Day
OG Bus R
t Purpose
tion and em
e on the
cally plan
ployment g
ant that tr
esidents to
r County tr
Against th
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
s are very
e attached
pital projec
unded bus
unds could
rection. It
ost cost-eff
curs with
used STA f
so consid
cility and
& Earth D
r impacts
wson shoul
negative s
n this event
with 1,079 t
LO Transit
y.
apid Tran
and Objec
mploymen
County’s
for future
growth, the
ransit servi
get aroun
ransit serv
his backdro
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
flexible –
d agenda)
cts in FY 1
s procurem
d be remitt
t should b
fective veh
RTAC’s
funds to th
dering a
more info
Day Impa
on the SL
ld be recog
situations w
t indicates
total system
participate
nsit (BRT)
ctives
nt growth i
transporta
e transport
e general p
ices are be
d. A grow
ices as hig
op, current
sportation Commi
docx
they can b
), RTA ha
12-13. If RT
ment proje
ted back t
be noted
hicles poss
recomm
he jurisdict
new loca
ormation
acts (April
LO Transi
gnized for
with the r
that the D
m riders fo
ed with oth
) Study
in the San
ation syste
ation inve
population
ecoming e
wing studen
gher costs o
economic
ittees\MTC Comm
be used to
as assumed
RTA is able
ect, the RT
to the juri
that RTA
sible. In lin
endation
tions.
ation for
will be a
l 22nd): A
it system
her hard w
resulting d
DD route to
or the day
her transit
Luis Obis
em and r
estments. In
in the coun
even more
nt populatio
of living re
conditions
mittee\FY 2013\JU
fund eithe
d the use o
e to realize
TAC reco
isdictions,
A staff is
ne with tha
regarding
their op
available i
s expected
and City
work with
detours an
o Cuesta C
and an inc
agencies t
spo Count
resulted in
n addition
nty is agin
important
on has also
estrict priv
s have mea
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
er operatin
of $443,96
savings on
mmended
subject to
committe
at commitm
possible
perations
in the com
d both of t
Transporta
all particip
nd bus de
College car
crease over
to provide
ty area has
n the need
n to popula
ng as well.
t as a way
o increased
ate automo
ant that the
GENDA
19
ng or
60 in
n the
any
o the
d to
ment,
re-
and
ming
these
ation
pants
lays.
rried
r the
free
s put
d to
ation
This
y for
d the
obile
ere
29
July
G:\Tran
ITEM D
is less
limited.
SLOCO
embark
and has
the US
This pu
past tra
assessm
101 co
Specific
the area
integrat
The key
• S
• A
• E
p
Attache
June 12
candida
11, 2012 MT
nsportation-Data\_U
D-1 MTC Transit M
funding t
OG has bee
ed on a ser
s initiated a
101 corrid
urpose of t
ansit planni
ment of the
orridor at
cally, the g
a, provide
ting these e
y project ob
Streamline
Attract new
Evaluate m
prioritized i
ed with our
2, 2012 an
ate BRT im
TC agenda it
Unsorted Stuff\Tr
Manager's Report,
o provide
en proactiv
ries of stud
a study to
dor.
the Region
ing work t
most effe
interchan
goal will b
e a rankin
elements in
bjectives a
regional tr
w transit rid
most cost-e
implement
r agenda i
nd city sta
mprovemen
tem D-1
ansportation\Trans
- JULY 11-2012.d
better se
ve in anticip
dies to bet
evaluate B
nal BRT A
that has be
ective BRT
nges and
be to ident
ng of their
nto future p
are:
ransit servi
ders in the
effective tr
tation plan
is the BRT
aff will be
nts on Sept
sportation Commi
docx
ervice whil
pating the
tter improv
Bus Rapid
Application
een occurr
T strategies
along str
tify BRT e
r effective
projects an
ice in San L
County
ransit imp
T Backgrou
attending
ember 26,
ittees\MTC Comm
le new fu
transit nee
ve local an
Transit (B
ns study w
ring in the
s that can b
reets servi
elements th
eness and
nd program
Luis Obisp
provements
und Summ
a consult
2012.
mittee\FY 2013\JU
unding opp
eds in the c
nd regional
BRT) oppo
will be to fu
e County a
be pursued
ing these
hat are mo
propose
ms.
po County
s in order
mary and e
tant works
ULY 11-2012\4-AG
portunities
county and
l transit ser
ortunities a
further adv
and provid
d along the
interchan
ost suitable
a timeline
r to develo
eNewsletter
shop to rev
GENDA
20
s are
d has
rvice
along
vance
de an
e US
nges.
e for
e for
op a
r for
view
30
MT
C
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
-
D
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
“
A
”
-
JU
L
Y
1
1
,
2
0
1
2
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
G:
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
a
t
a
\
_
U
n
s
o
r
t
e
d
S
t
u
f
f
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
po
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
\
M
T
C
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
FY
2
0
1
3
\
J
U
L
Y
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
\
5
-
D
2
-
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
EN
T
A
-
M
T
C
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
J
U
L
Y
9
-
-
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
1
M
a
y
-
1
1
G
A
L
A
M
T
C
O
S
T
/
G
A
L
D
I
E
S
E
L
1
0
,
5
2
6
.
4
0
$
4
0
,
7
6
0
.
2
5
$
3
.
8
7
C
N
G
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
G
A
S
4
9
6
.
1
0
$
1
,
9
3
9
.
5
3
$
3
.
9
1
T
O
T
A
L
1
1
,
0
2
2
.
5
0
$
4
2
,
6
9
9
.
7
8
$
3
.
8
7
J
u
n
-
1
1
G
A
L
A
M
T
C
O
S
T
/
G
A
L
D
I
E
S
E
L
9
,
4
0
1
.
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
2
2
.
1
5
$
3
.
7
3
C
N
G
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
G
A
S
2
7
0
.
2
0
$
9
8
3
.
8
1
$
3
.
6
4
T
O
T
A
L
9
,
6
7
1
.
2
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
5
.
9
6
$
3
.
7
2
31
MT
C
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
-
D
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
“
A
”
-
JU
L
Y
1
1
,
2
0
1
2
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
G:
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
a
t
a
\
_
U
n
s
o
r
t
e
d
S
t
u
f
f
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
po
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
\
M
T
C
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
FY
2
0
1
3
\
J
U
L
Y
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
\
5
-
D
2
-
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
EN
T
A
-
M
T
C
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
J
U
L
Y
9
-
-
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
2
M
a
y
-
1
2
G
A
L
A
M
T
C
O
S
T
/
G
A
L
D
I
E
S
E
L
1
1
,
0
2
8
.
4
0
$
4
1
,
1
8
2
.
6
2
$
3
.
7
3
C
N
G
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
G
A
S
2
2
0
.
5
0
$
1
,
0
1
5
.
8
4
$
4
.
6
1
T
O
T
A
L
1
1
,
2
4
8
.
9
0
$
4
2
,
1
9
8
.
4
6
$
3
.
7
5
J
u
n
-
1
2
G
A
L
A
M
T
C
O
S
T
/
G
A
L
D
I
E
S
E
L
8
,
6
0
8
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
7
8
2
.
7
2
$
3
.
2
3
C
N
G
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
G
A
S
2
3
3
.
9
0
$
9
3
1
.
5
8
$
3
.
9
8
T
O
T
A
L
8
,
8
4
1
.
9
0
$
2
8
,
7
1
4
.
3
0
$
3
.
2
5
32
MT
C
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
-
D
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
“
A
”
-
JU
L
Y
1
1
,
2
0
1
2
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
G:
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
a
t
a
\
_
U
n
s
o
r
t
e
d
S
t
u
f
f
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
po
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
\
M
T
C
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
FY
2
0
1
3
\
J
U
L
Y
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
\
5
-
D
2
-
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
EN
T
A
-
M
T
C
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
J
U
L
Y
9
-
-
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
3
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
a
l
l
F
u
e
l
s
T
O
T
A
L
C
O
S
T
a
l
l
f
u
e
l
s
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
F
Y
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
7
2
0
1
2
v
s
1
1
2
0
1
1
v
s
1
0
2
0
1
0
v
s
0
9
0
9
v
s
0
8
J
u
l
y
$3
2
,
9
5
9
.
7
9
$
2
3
,
0
3
8
.
5
2
$
2
0
,
5
9
4
.
4
9
$
4
0
,
9
1
4
.
7
5
$
2
7
,
4
3
1
.
1
0
$
2
1
,
8
3
1
.
0
2
4
3
.
0
6
%
1
0
.
6
1
%
-
4
9
.
6
6
%
4
9
.
1
5
%
Au
g
u
s
t
$3
4
,
5
4
2
.
5
5
$
2
4
,
8
6
2
.
4
6
$
2
1
,
6
8
4
.
7
9
$
3
6
,
4
5
9
.
6
6
$
1
5
,
5
4
6
.
4
4
$
3
9
,
5
1
4
.
1
2
3
8
.
9
3
%
1
2
.
7
8
%
-
4
0
.
5
2
%
1
3
4
.
5
2
%
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
$3
8
,
4
9
3
.
1
1
$
3
0
,
5
0
3
.
1
3
$
2
3
,
8
5
4
.
4
4
$
3
7
,
4
3
6
.
3
8
$
3
5
,
6
7
0
.
9
5
$
3
0
,
3
6
6
.
9
0
2
6
.
1
9
%
2
1
.
8
0
%
-
3
6
.
2
8
%
4
.
9
5
%
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
$3
9
,
8
6
1
.
2
6
$
3
3
,
2
5
1
.
2
0
$
2
6
,
4
6
6
.
4
6
$
3
5
,
3
8
3
.
7
2
$
3
4
,
3
0
6
.
0
9
$
3
1
,
5
0
8
.
7
9
1
9
.
8
8
%
2
0
.
4
0
%
-
2
5
.
2
0
%
3
.
1
4
%
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
$3
6
,
7
5
4
.
4
6
$
3
2
,
5
7
0
.
8
9
$
2
4
,
4
3
8
.
1
2
$
2
2
,
5
2
6
.
5
6
$
2
4
,
8
7
0
.
9
4
$
2
1
,
5
2
7
.
1
3
1
2
.
8
4
%
2
4
.
9
7
%
8
.
4
9
%
-
9
.
4
3
%
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
$2
8
,
2
0
8
.
0
6
$
2
0
,
7
1
9
.
4
7
$
2
1
,
5
4
0
.
0
8
$
1
5
,
2
3
0
.
7
3
$
3
3
,
7
1
6
.
1
9
$
2
5
,
9
8
8
.
4
6
3
6
.
1
4
%
-
3
.
9
6
%
4
1
.
4
3
%
-
5
4
.
8
3
%
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
$
3
8
,
4
9
8
.
4
2
$
3
2
,
2
0
4
.
0
8
$
2
6
,
3
8
3
.
9
9
$
2
0
,
6
2
0
.
0
3
$
3
0
,
6
9
0
.
0
7
$
1
8
,
4
9
4
.
1
1
1
9
.
5
5
%
1
8
.
0
7
%
2
7
.
9
5
%
-
3
2
.
8
1
%
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
$
3
6
,
6
7
0
.
0
1
$
3
2
,
6
8
8
.
2
5
$
2
4
,
9
5
5
.
9
5
$
1
8
,
0
3
0
.
9
3
$
2
8
,
4
6
5
.
2
7
$
2
4
,
9
0
9
.
6
4
1
2
.
1
8
%
2
3
.
6
5
%
3
8
.
4
1
%
-
3
6
.
6
6
%
M
a
r
c
h
$
4
0
,
3
8
2
.
8
2
$
4
1
,
5
4
1
.
6
6
$
3
0
,
0
8
3
.
1
1
$
1
8
,
4
7
2
.
5
1
$
3
4
,
5
0
3
.
9
0
$
2
7
,
3
9
8
.
6
0
-
2
.
7
9
%
2
7
.
5
8
%
6
2
.
8
5
%
-
4
6
.
4
6
%
A
p
r
i
l
$
4
1
,
9
1
2
.
0
1
$
4
2
,
6
5
0
.
9
2
$
2
9
,
0
6
6
.
4
6
$
1
9
,
7
5
1
.
9
5
$
4
1
,
7
6
9
.
3
7
$
2
8
,
5
1
1
.
8
6
-
1
.
7
3
%
3
1
.
8
5
%
4
7
.
1
6
%
-
5
2
.
7
1
%
M
a
y
$
4
2
,
1
9
8
.
4
6
$
4
2
,
6
9
9
.
7
8
$
2
7
,
4
1
2
.
5
2
$
2
0
,
2
1
7
.
7
4
$
4
4
,
6
0
5
.
7
9
$
3
1
,
9
5
7
.
4
3
-
1
.
1
7
%
3
5
.
8
0
%
3
5
.
5
9
%
-
5
4
.
6
7
%
J
u
n
e
$2
8
,
7
1
4
.
3
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
5
.
9
6
$
2
6
,
2
0
7
.
8
2
$
1
9
,
9
0
7
.
1
6
$
4
1
,
0
7
5
.
7
5
$
2
4
,
3
9
1
.
5
3
-
2
0
.
2
5
%
2
7
.
2
1
%
3
1
.
6
5
%
-
5
1
.
5
4
%
$
4
3
9
,
1
9
5
.
2
5
$
3
9
2
,
7
3
6
.
3
2
$
3
0
2
,
6
8
8
.
2
3
$
3
0
4
,
9
5
2
.
1
2
$
3
9
2
,
6
5
1
.
8
6
$
3
2
6
,
3
9
9
.
5
9
1
1
.
8
3
%
2
2
.
9
3
%
-
0
.
7
4
%
-
2
2
.
3
4
%
Co
s
t
P
e
r
G
a
l
l
o
n
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
DifferenceDifferencer
F
Y
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
7
2
0
1
2
v
s
1
1
2
0
1
1
v
s
1
0
2
0
1
0
v
s
0
9
0
9
v
s
0
8
v
J
u
l
y
$
3
.
7
2
$
2
.
8
2
$
2
.
4
1
$
4
.
3
9
$
2
.
8
3
$
2
.
2
7
3
1
.
9
3
%
1
4
.
5
1
%
-
4
4
.
9
7
%
5
4
.
9
1
%
A
u
g
u
s
t
$
3
.
7
1
$
2
.
8
8
$
2
.
5
7
$
3
.
9
1
$
2
.
6
7
$
2
.
7
7
2
8
.
9
4
%
1
0
.
8
1
%
-
3
4
.
3
8
%
4
6
.
7
9
%
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
$
3
.
6
5
$
2
.
9
6
$
2
.
5
1
$
3
.
5
3
$
2
.
7
3
$
2
.
6
0
2
3
.
1
7
%
1
5
.
3
3
%
-
2
8
.
9
9
%
2
9
.
5
7
%
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
$
3
.
6
8
$
3
.
1
2
$
2
.
5
7
$
3
.
0
2
$
3
.
0
1
$
2
.
3
4
1
7
.
7
7
%
1
7
.
6
5
%
-
1
4
.
8
5
%
0
.
4
7
%
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
$
3
.
7
4
$
3
.
2
1
$
2
.
6
3
$
2
.
2
6
$
3
.
2
7
$
2
.
4
0
1
6
.
4
1
%
1
8
.
2
2
%
1
6
.
1
9
%
-
3
0
.
7
8
%
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
$
3
.
5
0
$
3
.
2
0
$
2
.
5
8
$
1
.
8
6
$
3
.
7
7
$
2
.
5
2
9
.
2
8
%
1
9
.
4
0
%
3
8
.
8
2
%
-
5
0
.
6
1
%
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
$
3
.
6
2
$
3
.
2
0
$
2
.
7
0
$
1
.
9
2
$
3
.
0
5
$
2
.
4
0
1
3
.
2
2
%
1
5
.
5
0
%
4
1
.
0
1
%
-
3
7
.
0
5
%
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
$
3
.
8
2
$
3
.
4
3
$
2
.
6
9
$
1
.
9
0
$
3
.
0
4
$
2
.
5
8
1
1
.
5
6
%
2
1
.
5
2
%
4
1
.
8
4
%
-
3
7
.
5
7
%
M
a
r
c
h
$
4
.
0
0
$
3
.
8
6
$
2
.
9
0
$
1
.
7
8
$
3
.
3
8
$
2
.
5
5
3
.
4
7
%
2
4
.
9
8
%
6
2
.
6
0
%
-
4
7
.
2
6
%
A
p
r
i
l
$
3
.
8
9
$
4
.
0
5
$
2
.
8
8
$
1
.
8
7
$
3
.
5
2
$
2
.
6
0
-
3
.
7
5
%
2
8
.
7
8
%
5
4
.
0
9
%
-
4
6
.
9
3
%
M
a
y
$
3
.
7
5
$
3
.
8
7
$
2
.
8
2
$
1
.
9
3
$
4
.
0
4
$
2
.
6
5
-
3
.
1
6
%
2
7
.
1
9
%
4
5
.
8
1
%
-
5
2
.
1
5
%
J
u
n
e
$
3
.
2
5
$
3
.
7
2
$
2
.
7
8
$
2
.
2
1
$
4
.
2
2
$
2
.
7
3
-
1
2
.
7
7
%
2
5
.
2
6
%
2
5
.
8
0
%
-
4
7
.
5
9
%
$
3
.
7
0
$
3
.
3
9
$
2
.
6
8
$
2
.
5
5
$
3
.
3
0
$
2
.
5
4
9
.
3
2
%
2
0
.
9
7
%
5
.
1
3
%
-
2
2
.
9
1
%
CO
S
T
/
G
A
L
a
l
l
f
u
e
l
s
33
MT
C
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
-
D
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
“
A
”
-
JU
L
Y
1
1
,
2
0
1
2
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
G:
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
a
t
a
\
_
U
n
s
o
r
t
e
d
S
t
u
f
f
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
po
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
\
M
T
C
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
FY
2
0
1
3
\
J
U
L
Y
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
\
5
-
D
2
-
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
EN
T
A
-
M
T
C
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
J
U
L
Y
9
-
-
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
4
To
t
a
l
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
a
l
l
F
u
e
l
s
T
O
T
A
L
G
A
L
L
O
N
S
U
S
E
D
A
L
L
F
U
E
L
S
F
Y
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
7
2
0
1
2
v
s
1
1
2
0
1
1
v
s
1
0
2
0
1
0
v
s
0
9
0
9
v
s
0
8
J
u
l
y
8
,
8
4
9
.
0
0
8
,
1
6
0
.
3
0
8
,
5
3
3
.
0
0
9
,
3
2
9
.
6
0
9
,
6
8
9
.
5
0
9
,
6
0
9
.
1
0
8
.
4
4
%
-
4
.
5
7
%
-
8
.
5
4
%
-
3
.
7
1
%
Au
g
u
s
t
9
,
3
0
6
.
1
0
8
,
6
3
6
.
5
0
8
,
4
4
5
.
2
0
9
,
3
1
8
.
0
0
5
,
8
3
2
.
1
0
1
4
,
2
6
5
.
1
0
7
.
7
5
%
2
.
2
2
%
-
9
.
3
7
%
5
9
.
7
7
%
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
5
4
5
.
1
0
1
0
,
2
9
2
.
5
0
9
,
5
0
6
.
1
0
1
0
,
5
9
3
.
2
0
1
3
,
0
7
8
.
2
0
1
1
,
6
6
8
.
1
0
2
.
4
5
%
7
.
6
4
%
-
1
0
.
2
6
%
-
1
9
.
0
0
%
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
0
,
8
3
7
.
3
0
1
0
,
6
4
7
.
0
0
1
0
,
2
9
0
.
7
0
1
1
,
7
1
5
.
4
0
1
1
,
4
1
2
.
1
0
1
3
,
4
8
8
.
7
0
1
.
7
9
%
3
.
3
5
%
-
1
2
.
1
6
%
2
.
6
6
%
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
8
2
1
.
3
0
1
0
,
1
3
1
.
6
0
9
,
2
9
4
.
9
0
9
,
9
5
4
.
8
0
7
,
6
0
7
.
8
0
8
,
9
7
1
.
7
0
-
3
.
0
6
%
8
.
2
6
%
-
6
.
6
3
%
3
0
.
8
5
%
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
8
,
0
5
4
.
0
0
6
,
4
6
4
.
8
0
8
,
3
3
8
.
2
0
8
,
1
8
4
.
4
0
8
,
9
4
9
.
0
0
1
0
,
3
1
5
.
3
0
2
4
.
5
8
%
-
2
8
.
9
8
%
1
.
8
8
%
-
8
.
5
4
%
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
0
,
6
2
9
.
0
0
1
0
,
0
6
7
.
0
0
9
,
7
6
0
.
1
0
1
0
,
7
5
6
.
3
0
1
0
,
0
7
8
.
1
0
7
,
6
9
3
.
2
0
5
.
5
8
%
3
.
0
5
%
-
9
.
2
6
%
6
.
7
3
%
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
9
,
5
9
5
.
3
0
9
,
5
4
2
.
3
0
9
,
2
8
2
.
8
0
9
,
5
1
2
.
9
0
9
,
3
7
5
.
6
0
9
,
6
5
6
.
0
0
0
.
5
6
%
2
.
7
2
%
-
2
.
4
2
%
1
.
4
6
%
M
a
r
c
h
1
0
,
1
0
7
.
8
0
1
0
,
7
5
9
.
0
0
1
0
,
3
8
5
.
9
0
1
0
,
3
6
9
.
5
0
1
0
,
2
1
4
.
2
0
1
0
,
7
4
3
.
6
0
-
6
.
0
5
%
3
.
4
7
%
0
.
1
6
%
1
.
5
2
%
A
p
r
i
l
1
0
,
7
6
2
.
0
0
1
0
,
5
4
0
.
9
0
1
0
,
0
8
6
.
7
0
1
0
,
5
6
1
.
8
0
1
1
,
8
5
3
.
5
0
1
0
,
9
4
6
.
0
0
2
.
1
0
%
4
.
3
1
%
-
4
.
5
0
%
-
1
0
.
9
0
%
M
a
y
1
1
,
2
4
8
.
9
0
1
1
,
0
2
2
.
5
0
9
,
7
1
9
.
3
0
1
0
,
4
5
2
.
3
0
1
1
,
0
3
4
.
7
0
1
2
,
0
6
0
.
0
0
2
.
0
5
%
1
1
.
8
2
%
-
7
.
0
1
%
-
5
.
2
8
%
J
u
n
e
8
,
8
4
1
.
9
0
9
,
6
7
1
.
2
0
9
,
4
1
8
.
2
0
8
,
9
9
9
.
7
0
9
,
7
3
1
.
9
0
8
,
9
4
3
.
5
0
-
8
.
5
7
%
2
.
6
2
%
4
.
6
5
%
-
7
.
5
2
%
1
1
8
,
5
9
8
1
1
5
,
9
3
6
1
1
3
,
0
6
1
1
1
9
,
7
4
8
1
1
8
,
8
5
7
1
2
8
,
3
6
0
2
.
3
0
%
2
.
4
8
%
-
5
.
5
8
%
0
.
7
5
%
34
MT
C
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
-
D
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
“
A
”
-
JU
L
Y
1
1
,
2
0
1
2
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
G:
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
a
t
a
\
_
U
n
s
o
r
t
e
d
S
t
u
f
f
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
po
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
\
M
T
C
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
FY
2
0
1
3
\
J
U
L
Y
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
\
5
-
D
2
-
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
EN
T
A
-
M
T
C
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
J
U
L
Y
9
-
-
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
5
-1
0
,
0
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
65
,
0
0
0
90
,
0
0
0
11
5
,
0
0
0
14
0
,
0
0
0
Ju
l
y
A
u
g
u
s
t
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
M
a
r
c
h
A
p
r
i
l
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
Riders
Mo
n
t
h
SL
O
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
35
MT
C
A
G
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
-
D
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
“
A
”
-
JU
L
Y
1
1
,
2
0
1
2
R
E
G
U
L
A
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
G:
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
a
t
a
\
_
U
n
s
o
r
t
e
d
S
t
u
f
f
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
po
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
\
M
T
C
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
\
FY
2
0
1
3
\
J
U
L
Y
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
\
5
-
D
2
-
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
EN
T
A
-
M
T
C
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
S
J
U
L
Y
9
-
-
2
0
1
2
.
d
o
c
x
6
20
1
1
-
1
2
S
L
O
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
l
o
g
B
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
JU
L
Y
1
-
2
0
1
1
-
J
U
N
E
3
0
-
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
N
U
M
B
E
R
DR
I
V
E
R
A
T
T
I
T
U
D
E
/
C
O
N
D
U
C
T
11
DR
I
V
E
R
M
I
S
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
3
EA
R
L
Y
D
E
P
A
R
T
U
R
E
1
LA
T
E
A
R
R
I
V
A
L
1
FA
R
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
1
MI
S
S
E
D
S
T
O
P
2
MI
S
S
E
D
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
1
NO
T
K
N
E
E
L
I
N
G
2
PA
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
B
Y
P
A
S
S
E
D
7
PA
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
R
E
F
U
S
E
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
2
RE
C
K
L
E
S
S
D
R
I
V
I
N
G
8
SP
E
E
D
I
N
G
9
MI
S
C
1
TO
T
A
L
4
9
TO
T
A
L
P
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
1
,
1
1
8
,
5
6
1
RA
T
I
O
2
2
,
8
2
8
36
05
/
0
1
/
1
1
05
/
3
1
/
1
1
0
5
/
3
1
/
1
2
07
/
0
1
/
1
1
07
/
0
1
/
1
0
05
/
0
1
/
1
2
05
/
3
1
/
1
1
05
/
3
1
/
1
2
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
To
To
To
To
Ta
b
l
e
A
:
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
T
r
e
nd
s
b
y
F
a
r
e
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
a
r
e
35
,
3
0
5
3
8
,
6
1
7
3
7
1
,
2
4
1
3
9
2
,
3
1
0
9.
3
8
%
5
.
6
8
%
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
T
o
t
a
l
74
,
5
2
9
8
0
,
2
4
6
6
1
3
,
3
1
0
6
6
7
,
4
2
6
7.
6
7
%
8
.
8
2
%
RE
V
E
N
U
E
1
R
i
d
e
P
a
s
s
16
.
8
7
%
7.
4
1
%
83
97
1,
2
5
5
1,
3
4
8
1-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
28
.
2
3
%
20
.
2
0
%
54
2
69
5
5,
9
1
6
7,
1
1
1
3-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
13
3
.
7
6
%
50
.
8
5
%
15
7
36
7
2,
1
7
3
3,
2
7
8
5-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
32
.
4
1
%
98
.
6
0
%
10
8
14
3
1,
0
0
0
1,
9
8
6
7-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
19
.
5
1
%
-7
.
4
4
%
12
3
14
7
1,
1
8
3
1,
0
9
5
31
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
-1
.
7
3
%
-2
0
.
2
7
%
1,
7
8
8
1,
7
5
7
20
,
0
2
3
15
,
9
6
4
31
-
D
a
y
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
a
5.
5
5
%
-1
.
0
6
%
1,
3
6
9
1,
4
4
5
12
,
1
2
5
11
,
9
9
6
Am
t
r
a
k
-1
0
0
.
0
0
%
6.
4
5
%
7
0
31
33
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
7.
6
0
%
9.
1
1
%
74
,
1
7
9
79
,
8
1
4
60
9
,
3
1
9
66
4
,
8
0
2
CP
I
n
v
a
l
i
d
C
a
r
d
23
.
4
3
%
-3
4
.
2
5
%
35
0
43
2
3,
9
9
1
2,
6
2
4
DA
P
P
a
s
s
48
.
0
8
%
-0
.
4
5
%
1,
0
1
5
1,
5
0
3
12
,
5
3
0
12
,
4
7
4
Pa
s
s
O
v
e
r
r
i
d
e
-1
1
.
3
8
%
-7
.
7
1
%
33
4
29
6
3,
1
1
4
2,
8
7
4
Pu
n
c
h
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
1.
3
7
%
15
0
.
0
0
%
73
74
24
2
60
5
Pu
n
c
h
S
D
P
a
s
s
-3
.
7
0
%
45
4
.
6
4
%
27
26
97
53
8
Re
g
D
a
y
P
a
s
s
43
.
0
1
%
28
.
5
6
%
1,
3
3
0
1,
9
0
2
13
,
9
5
3
17
,
9
3
8
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
s
s
31
.
2
5
%
16
.
0
9
%
4,
8
6
1
6,
3
8
0
49
,
5
4
4
57
,
5
1
8
Re
g
u
l
a
r
C
a
s
h
-2
.
3
6
%
-0
.
3
8
%
8,
6
1
0
8,
4
0
7
89
,
1
9
9
88
,
8
5
8
SR
/
D
I
S
C
a
s
h
8.
0
5
%
15
.
9
3
%
2,
5
3
4
2,
7
3
8
24
,
0
4
1
27
,
8
7
0
SR
/
D
I
S
P
a
s
s
5.
4
3
%
0.
6
7
%
7,
7
7
7
8,
1
9
9
79
,
3
4
7
79
,
8
7
7
Pr
a
d
o
T
o
k
e
n
14
.
4
2
%
1.
1
3
%
65
9
75
4
7,
4
6
6
7,
5
5
0
NO
N
-
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
Fr
e
e
R
i
d
e
E
v
e
n
t
-1
4
.
2
9
%
45
9
.
3
6
%
7
6
1,
9
2
9
10
,
7
9
0
Fr
e
e
R
i
d
e
r
s
-7
.
5
1
%
-2
0
.
8
8
%
1,
2
3
8
1,
1
4
5
14
,
7
8
5
11
,
6
9
8
Fr
e
e
T
o
k
e
n
-5
7
.
6
9
%
-8
.
5
7
%
26
11
14
0
12
8
Ne
w
c
o
m
e
r
63
.
6
4
%
17
.
0
4
%
22
36
22
3
26
1
Pr
o
m
o
P
a
s
s
-9
3
.
4
8
%
-4
1
.
0
5
%
92
6
22
9
13
5
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
0.
6
0
%
-0
.
6
5
%
1,
6
6
7
1,
6
7
7
18
,
2
5
6
18
,
1
3
7
VI
P
-4
.
2
8
%
6.
6
9
%
84
2
80
6
7,
9
8
5
8,
5
1
9
Yo
u
t
h
-1
0
0
.
0
0
%
-1
6
.
3
0
%
14
0
4,
4
5
5
3,
7
2
9
TO
T
A
L
8.
2
2
%
7.
6
4
%
10
9
,
8
3
4
11
8
,
8
6
3
98
4
,
5
5
1
1
,
0
5
9
,
7
3
6
37
05
/
0
1
/
1
1
05
/
3
1
/
1
1
05
/
3
1
/
1
2
07
/
0
1
/
1
1
07
/
0
1
/
1
0
05
/
0
1
/
1
2
05
/
3
1
/
1
1
05
/
3
1
/
1
2
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
To
To
To
To
Ta
b
l
e
B
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
a
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
8.
2
2
%
7.
6
4
%
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
10
9
,
8
3
4
.
0
0
11
8
,
8
6
3
.
0
0
98
4
,
5
5
1
.
0
0
1,
0
5
9
,
7
3
6
.
0
0
9.
6
1
%
7.
8
5
%
We
e
k
d
a
y
10
0
,
0
5
5
.
0
0
10
9
,
6
7
0
.
0
0
88
8
,
1
5
8
.
0
0
95
7
,
8
8
4
.
0
0
6.
1
9
%
9.
0
2
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
4,
9
7
5
.
0
0
5,
2
8
3
.
0
0
53
,
1
4
3
.
0
0
57
,
9
3
7
.
0
0
-1
8
.
6
1
%
1.
5
4
%
Su
n
d
a
y
4,
8
0
4
.
0
0
3,
9
1
0
.
0
0
43
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
43
,
9
1
5
.
0
0
-1
.
0
6
%
-0
.
9
7
%
Re
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
3,
0
3
5
.
2
2
3,
0
0
2
.
9
0
30
,
7
6
6
.
1
4
30
,
4
6
8
.
8
6
1.
6
6
%
-0
.
6
0
%
We
e
k
d
a
y
2,
5
9
9
.
8
2
2,
6
4
2
.
8
6
26
,
2
0
6
.
3
8
26
,
0
4
8
.
2
8
4.
4
4
%
4.
8
5
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
19
8
.
8
8
20
7
.
7
2
2,
2
7
3
.
4
0
2,
3
8
3
.
6
8
-3
5
.
6
0
%
-1
0
.
9
1
%
Su
n
d
a
y
23
6
.
5
2
15
2
.
3
2
2,
2
8
6
.
3
6
2,
0
3
6
.
9
0
9.
3
9
%
8.
6
9
%
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
p
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
36
.
1
9
39
.
5
8
32
.
0
0
34
.
7
8
1.
1
1
%
-0
.
6
4
%
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
35
,
4
0
2
.
0
0
35
,
7
9
4
.
0
0
36
5
,
7
0
5
.
0
0
36
3
,
3
8
1
.
0
0
2.
8
0
%
0.
3
5
%
We
e
k
d
a
y
30
,
5
8
7
.
0
0
31
,
4
4
4
.
0
0
30
9
,
5
1
4
.
0
0
31
0
,
6
0
8
.
0
0
29
.
3
6
%
0.
8
0
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
1,
8
7
3
.
0
0
2,
4
2
3
.
0
0
27
,
1
4
9
.
0
0
27
,
3
6
6
.
0
0
-3
4
.
5
0
%
-1
2
.
5
2
%
Su
n
d
a
y
2,
9
4
2
.
0
0
1,
9
2
7
.
0
0
29
,
0
4
2
.
0
0
25
,
4
0
7
.
0
0
7.
0
4
%
8.
3
2
%
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
p
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
3.
1
0
3.
3
2
2.
6
9
2.
9
2
38
06
/
0
1
/
1
1
06
/
3
0
/
1
1
0
6
/
3
0
/
1
2
07
/
0
1
/
1
1
07
/
0
1
/
1
0
06
/
0
1
/
1
2
06
/
3
0
/
1
1
06
/
3
0
/
1
2
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
To
To
To
To
Ta
b
l
e
A
:
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
T
r
e
nd
s
b
y
F
a
r
e
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
a
r
e
33
,
9
9
9
3
6
,
4
6
5
4
0
5
,
2
4
0
4
2
8
,
7
7
7
7.
2
5
%
5
.
8
1
%
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
T
o
t
a
l
26
,
8
1
9
2
2
,
3
5
8
6
4
0
,
1
2
9
6
8
9
,
7
8
4
-1
6
.
6
3
%
7
.
7
6
%
RE
V
E
N
U
E
1
R
i
d
e
P
a
s
s
-4
6
.
7
1
%
1.
5
6
%
15
2
81
1,
4
0
7
1,
4
2
9
1-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
95
.
8
7
%
24
.
5
7
%
36
3
71
1
6,
2
7
9
7,
8
2
2
3-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
22
.
6
9
%
48
.
3
0
%
21
6
26
5
2,
3
8
9
3,
5
4
3
5-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
53
.
1
0
%
93
.
9
8
%
11
3
17
3
1,
1
1
3
2,
1
5
9
7-
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
11
1
.
6
3
%
-3
.
2
6
%
43
91
1,
2
2
6
1,
1
8
6
31
D
a
y
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
13
.
5
5
%
-1
7
.
9
9
%
1,
4
4
6
1,
6
4
2
21
,
4
6
9
17
,
6
0
6
31
-
D
a
y
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
P
a
-1
5
.
9
1
%
-1
.
7
3
%
57
2
48
1
12
,
6
9
7
12
,
4
7
7
Am
t
r
a
k
-8
3
.
3
3
%
-8
.
1
1
%
6
1
37
34
Ca
l
P
o
l
y
-1
6
.
4
2
%
8.
0
4
%
26
,
6
2
8
22
,
2
5
5
63
5
,
9
4
7
68
7
,
0
5
7
CP
I
n
v
a
l
i
d
C
a
r
d
-4
6
.
0
7
%
-3
4
.
7
9
%
19
1
10
3
4,
1
8
2
2,
7
2
7
DA
P
P
a
s
s
25
.
9
2
%
1.
4
2
%
95
3
1,
2
0
0
13
,
4
8
3
13
,
6
7
4
Pa
s
s
O
v
e
r
r
i
d
e
-3
3
.
9
9
%
-1
0
.
0
4
%
30
3
20
0
3,
4
1
7
3,
0
7
4
Pu
n
c
h
R
e
g
P
a
s
s
-9
.
8
4
%
11
7
.
8
2
%
61
55
30
3
66
0
Pu
n
c
h
S
D
P
a
s
s
95
.
4
5
%
38
8
.
2
4
%
22
43
11
9
58
1
Re
g
D
a
y
P
a
s
s
38
.
5
4
%
29
.
4
6
%
1,
3
8
3
1,
9
1
6
15
,
3
3
6
19
,
8
5
4
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
s
s
14
.
3
8
%
15
.
9
5
%
4,
4
0
3
5,
0
3
6
53
,
9
4
7
62
,
5
5
4
Re
g
u
l
a
r
C
a
s
h
-1
6
.
5
4
%
-1
.
8
2
%
8,
7
2
8
7,
2
8
4
97
,
9
2
7
96
,
1
4
2
SR
/
D
I
S
C
a
s
h
17
.
6
2
%
16
.
0
7
%
2,
2
8
2
2,
6
8
4
26
,
3
2
3
30
,
5
5
4
SR
/
D
I
S
P
a
s
s
-1
.
1
0
%
0.
5
2
%
7,
2
5
3
7,
1
7
3
86
,
6
0
0
87
,
0
5
0
Pr
a
d
o
T
o
k
e
n
3.
8
2
%
1.
3
5
%
68
1
70
7
8,
1
4
7
8,
2
5
7
NO
N
-
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
Fr
e
e
R
i
d
e
E
v
e
n
t
-6
0
.
0
0
%
45
8
.
0
1
%
5
2
1,
9
3
4
10
,
7
9
2
Fr
e
e
R
i
d
e
r
s
-1
5
.
8
2
%
-2
0
.
4
6
%
1,
3
2
1
1,
1
1
2
16
,
1
0
6
12
,
8
1
0
Fr
e
e
T
o
k
e
n
-6
9
.
7
0
%
-2
0
.
2
3
%
33
10
17
3
13
8
Ne
w
c
o
m
e
r
18
9
.
2
9
%
36
.
2
5
%
28
81
25
1
34
2
Pr
o
m
o
P
a
s
s
33
.
3
3
%
-3
7
.
3
4
%
12
16
24
1
15
1
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
-1
2
.
6
7
%
-1
.
7
0
%
1,
7
5
2
1,
5
3
0
20
,
0
0
8
19
,
6
6
7
VI
P
-1
2
.
8
2
%
4.
7
2
%
89
7
78
2
8,
8
8
2
9,
3
0
1
Yo
u
t
h
22
8
.
4
2
%
27
.
5
3
%
97
1
3,
1
8
9
5,
4
2
6
6,
9
2
0
TO
T
A
L
-3
.
2
8
%
7.
0
0
%
60
,
8
1
8
58
,
8
2
3
1,
0
4
5
,
3
6
9
1
,
1
1
8
,
5
6
1
39
06
/
0
1
/
1
1
06
/
3
0
/
1
1
06
/
3
0
/
1
2
07
/
0
1
/
1
1
07
/
0
1
/
1
0
06
/
0
1
/
1
2
06
/
3
0
/
1
1
06
/
3
0
/
1
2
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
To
To
To
To
Ta
b
l
e
B
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
a
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-3
.
2
8
%
7.
0
0
%
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
60
,
8
1
8
.
0
0
58
,
8
2
3
.
0
0
1,
0
4
5
,
3
6
9
.
0
0
1,
1
1
8
,
5
6
1
.
0
0
-6
.
4
6
%
7.
0
2
%
We
e
k
d
a
y
54
,
7
4
9
.
0
0
51
,
2
1
4
.
0
0
94
2
,
9
0
7
.
0
0
1,
0
0
9
,
0
9
9
.
0
0
31
.
8
6
%
10
.
4
7
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
3,
6
1
3
.
0
0
4,
7
6
4
.
0
0
56
,
7
5
6
.
0
0
62
,
7
0
1
.
0
0
15
.
8
4
%
2.
3
1
%
Su
n
d
a
y
2,
4
5
6
.
0
0
2,
8
4
5
.
0
0
45
,
7
0
6
.
0
0
46
,
7
6
1
.
0
0
-6
.
5
4
%
-1
.
4
2
%
Re
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
2,
7
1
4
.
6
0
2,
5
3
6
.
9
6
33
,
4
8
0
.
7
4
33
,
0
0
5
.
8
2
-8
.
4
9
%
-1
.
2
4
%
We
e
k
d
a
y
2,
3
2
2
.
0
4
2,
1
2
4
.
9
9
28
,
5
2
8
.
4
2
28
,
1
7
3
.
2
7
10
.
5
5
%
5.
3
8
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
23
4
.
8
8
25
9
.
6
5
2,
5
0
8
.
2
8
2,
6
4
3
.
3
3
-3
.
4
0
%
-1
0
.
4
3
%
Su
n
d
a
y
15
7
.
6
8
15
2
.
3
2
2,
4
4
4
.
0
4
2,
1
8
9
.
2
2
3.
4
9
%
8.
5
4
%
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
p
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
22
.
4
0
23
.
1
9
31
.
2
2
33
.
8
9
-4
.
8
9
%
-0
.
9
8
%
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
32
,
1
2
2
.
0
0
30
,
5
5
0
.
0
0
39
7
,
8
2
7
.
0
0
39
3
,
9
3
1
.
0
0
-6
.
4
6
%
-0
.
2
0
%
We
e
k
d
a
y
27
,
5
8
7
.
0
0
25
,
8
0
4
.
0
0
33
7
,
1
0
1
.
0
0
33
6
,
4
1
2
.
0
0
7.
9
6
%
1.
4
3
%
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
2,
5
9
9
.
0
0
2,
8
0
6
.
0
0
29
,
7
4
8
.
0
0
30
,
1
7
2
.
0
0
0.
2
1
%
-1
1
.
7
2
%
Su
n
d
a
y
1,
9
3
6
.
0
0
1,
9
4
0
.
0
0
30
,
9
7
8
.
0
0
27
,
3
4
7
.
0
0
1.
7
0
%
8.
0
6
%
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
p
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
1.
8
9
1.
9
3
2.
6
3
2.
8
4
40
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
John Webster, Sr., Transit Manager
SUBJECT: TRANSIT ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review and accept the 2011-12 Transit Enterprise Fund analysis.
2. Conceptually approve the 2012-13 FY Transit Enterprise Fund budget, with final action on June
19, 2012.
DISCUSSION
This report summarizes the status of the Transit Enterprise Fund and key issues that may affect the
health of the fund during the second year of the two year Financial Plan. Funding for transit services
continues to be tight, with no funding available for new initiatives or major capital expenditures.
Overall, it is forecast that the Transit Fund will end 2011-12 with a modest year-end working capital
amount to assist with operations and minor capital expenditure project needs.
As of this writing, the Federal Government has yet to adopt the final twenty-five percent of transit
appropriations for the 2011-12 fiscal year. Indications are that the final transit apportionments will
remain at current levels but due to the current budget stalemate in Washington, the final 25%
apportionment could be delayed until the end of the Federal fiscal year on September 30, 2012.
SLO Transit has already submitted a grant application for the 75% apportionment of transit funding
and anticipates payment of this portion by August 2012. However, should the final 25%
apportionments be lower than projected, Transit Fund reserves will be needed to support the deficit
for the immediate shortfall. Should a reduction in the final 25% apportionment be significant, staff
will return to Council with a proposal for reducing service levels and/or deferment of capital
projects.
Transit Accomplishments in 2011-12
Although the Transit Fund Review primarily reports on financial and budgetary information, it is
important to reflect on the accomplishments that have occurred during the past fiscal year. Council
approval of the Transit Fund budget allows SLO Transit to provide continued services and support. The
following is a list of highlights that SLO Transit has been able to accomplish in the 2011-12 fiscal year.
1. Ridership
SLO Transit ridership is up 7.75% for a total of 940,923 passengers through April
30, 2012. It is projected that SLO Transit total ridership for 2011-12 will exceed 1.1
million riders.
Meeting Date
Item Number June 12, 2012
B2-141
Transit Enterprise Fund Review 2012 Page 2
2. Mobility Training - New Freedoms Grant
The Ridership Development Consultant has held at least 14 information, outreach and
training sessions for senior and disabled rider education. Program marketing and
informational materials are available at over a dozen locations throughout the City.
SLO Transit has experienced a year-to-date increase in ridership of 15% (13,568 riders)
in this segment as compared to the same period in 2009-10 before the start of this grant
funded program.
3. Ad Hoc Marketing Committee
On March 9, 2011, the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) approved the SLO
Transit marketing plan report. The SLO Transit Marketing Plan had been deferred
until funding sources could be identified. The SLO Transit Marketing Ad Hoc
committee met with Cal Poly faculty and students in attempt to seek marketing
assistance from the University. On March 14, 2012, the MTC members reviewed
five Cal Poly class marketing plan presentations and recommended the Ad Hoc
Marketing Committee to continue working with Cal Poly to develop products to
assist with transit system marketing in the 2012-13 fiscal year.
4. Excellence in Government Award
SLO Transit serves our City of 44,000 permanent residents and 18,000 temporary
student residents, many of whom rely on the transit system as their primary mode of
transportation. The Deputy Director of Public Works was recognized by the
Municipal Manager’s Association of Southern California with an Excellence in
Government Award for his work in enhancing the SLO Transit system, optimizing
routes used to serve the university and maintaining on-time performance of the
buses. SLO Transit continues to forge strong partnerships with Cal Poly, San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) and the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) to ensure that transit services remains a high priority, even
during difficult budget times.
5. Completion of Foothill/Tassajara corner Modification
This capital improvement project widened the corner of Foothill/Tassajara to allow
buses to again use this intersection and remove the buses from Ramona. This project
was completed in May 2012.
Transit Revenues
State Funding
State Budget Impacts
Overall, the Governor's proposed State budget does not make any significant changes to funding for
transportation or public transit. However, it is not known what final funding changes would occur if
the proposed tax increases are not approved by voters in the November election. Any further
reduction of funding to the City, Cal Poly or SLORTA could have a significant impact on service
levels for 2012-13 and beyond.
SLO Regional Transit Authority
SLO Transit shares State and Federal funding for transit services with SLORTA. This Agreement
funds SLORTA "off the top" each year from the City's share of State Transportation Development
B2-242
Transit Enterprise Fund Review 2012 Page 3
Act (TDA) funding. The recently adopted 2012-13 SLORTA budget increased the City's
contribution to SLORTA, thereby decreasing SLO Transit's allotment of State revenue available by
approximately $145,500 in 2012-13. Representatives from SLORTA, SLOCOG and SLO Transit
continue to work on options for funding that maximize transit service provisions for each agency.
State Transportation Development Act
The State Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides two sources of funding for
transportation programs. The first, Local Transportation Fund (LTF), is derived from ¼ cent
collected in retail sales taxes. The second, State Transit Assistance (STA), is derived from the
statewide sales tax on diesel fuel. Both of these funds are distributed to the regions by the State.
The regional agency, SLOCOG, then allocates this amount to each of the seven cities, the County,
SLOCOG, and the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency for the San Luis Obispo region.
LTF funds are apportioned according to population for public transit, street/road improvements and
bikeway/pedestrian facilities. STA funds are used for public transit purposes.
The State budget has yet to be approved and therefore the State Controller projected STA funding
allocation remains preliminary at this time but represents an increase of approximately $48,000 over
2011-12 FY.
Local Transportation Fund
The County Auditor LTF projections are higher than originally estimated with an 11% increase in
2012-13 largely attributed to a one-time carryover of funding, which is not anticipated in future
years. With a proposed fund reserve, the County Auditor has increased the LTF allocations for
jurisdictions. This allocation is a one-time bump in LTF funding and as such will not become the
new base for subsequent years.
Federal Funding
Program of Projects
The Transit Fund analysis anticipates the same level of Federal Transportation Assistance (FTA)
5307 funding apportionment for in the 2012-13 fiscal year. This projection provides adequate
support for operating assistance and preventive maintenance functions for SLO Transit only. No
additional capital projects have been projected as part of the Program of Projects (POP) in the 2012-
13 fiscal year. However, capital projects may be brought forward as part of a revised POP if
Federal funding allocations come in higher than projected. Any reduction in Federal operating
assistance will need to be offset with potential service reductions or other cost savings measures.
Subsidies
Cal Poly Subsidy Agreement
The City successfully negotiated a five-year Subsidy Agreement with Cal Poly which began on July
1, 2011. The SLO Transit budget projection for 2012-13 includes a 4% increase in Cal Poly subsidy
with smaller increases in the following three years. If the State budget significantly affects Cal
Poly's ability to fund the Subsidy Agreement, the City and the University have agreed to meet and
discuss potential program modifications or service level reductions.
Trolley Operations
The Friday and Saturday Trolley funding subsidy from the SLO Promotional Coordinating
Committee (PCC) will end on June 30, 2012. There are sufficient Transit operating funds to
B2-343
Transit Enterprise Fund Review 2012 Page 4
continue this service through the end of October 2012. Ridership on Fridays and Saturdays have
dropped significantly (-2,352 riders or 42%) when compared to the same July-April period last year.
When trolley services conclude in October, staff will evaluate the trolley ridership data to determine
if further service adjustments are warranted and whether to resume Friday and Saturday trolley
services again in April 2013. The Thursday trolley service levels continue to see steady ridership
trends and will not be affected by the loss of subsidy funding from the PCC. Thursday trolley
service remains productive with an overall increase of 5.36% (+499 riders) during the same July-
April period last year.
SLO Transit Operating Program
First Transit Service Contract
In June 2006 the City Council approved a three-year service contract with First Transit to provide
SLO Transit with Purchased Transportation for operations and maintenance services. In February
2012, Council approved a contract extension through June 30, 2013. Staff is in the process of
reviewing transit services to determine if an additional extension agreement will be negotiated with
First Transit or if a new Request for Proposals will be circulated for transit operations and
maintenance for 2013-14 and beyond. In anticipation of a pending change in contract services, staff
has assumed a 3.2% increase in Purchased Transportation operating contract costs for 2013-14.
Continued Volatility in Fuel Costs
Fuel costs are once again very volatile as experienced in 2008 and 2010 when fuel prices increased
significantly to almost $5 per gallon. Although fuel prices were showing stabilization in April, staff
projects fuel costs will continue to rise over the next year. Staff has projected fuel costs at $4.32 per
gallon with an average of 118,000 gallons of diesel fuel purchased in a fiscal year. Staff projects
this budget to be adequate for the 2012-13 fiscal year but outside market influences make this
assumption difficult to control. Should fuel prices increase significantly above projections, staff
will return to Council with identified service-level reductions or possible use of reserves.
Cost Allocation
The revised Cost Allocation Plan, approved by Council on May 15, 2012, resulted in a very
significant increase to Transit Services indirect charges. This increase of 33% or $118,000 (33%)
over previously projected amounts for the 2011-12 fiscal year is significant and effects actual
service on the street. The increase is attributed to the change in methodology for how the City
calculates direct and indirect charges for Enterprise Funds that receive General Fund program
support. The Cost Allocation Plan, which also affects the performance of farebox ratio, is subject to
Federal audits that the Transit Services program undergoes on a regular basis. The revised Cost
Allocation Plan is currently under review by the FTA and awaiting formal agency approval to be
used in FY 2013.
Farebox Ratio
With the fare increase approved in 2009, SLO Transit’s farebox ratio was projected to stabilize in
2010-11 and beyond. Staff projected the renegotiated Cal Poly Subsidy Agreement would be a key
component in meeting the required 20% farebox ratio for the SLO Transit system. In the 2011-12
fiscal year, farebox ratios have fallen slightly below the 20% required farebox ratio with a projected
annual average of 19.6%. This will continue through 2013-2014. This decrease in farebox ratios is
a direct result of a change in the City’s methodology for calculating direct and indirect charges for
Enterprise Funds that receive General Fund program support.
B2-444
Transit Enterprise Fund Review 2012 Page 5
As noted above, the revised Cost Allocation Plan resulted in a significant increase to Transit
Services indirect charges. If farebox ratios consistently fall below the 20% level, the City could be
subject to a State funding penalty and reduced transit funding, if the farebox ration remains below
20%, a fare increase may be necessary so as not to endanger funding levels.
Significant Operating Program Change
Due to the extended leave of the Deputy Director of Public Works, there is an additional Significant
Operating Program Change (SOPC) request for $7,500 in contract services for the 2012-13 fiscal year
(Attachment 2). Since the onset of leave for the Deputy Director of Public Works - Transportation,
staff has assessed the increasing time constraints with increasing complexities related to the
Enterprise Funds, workload balance, and constraints facing supervisors and managers. The Transit
Manager has taken a lead role in representing the City at SLOCOG meetings and hearings
previously handled by the Deputy Director. This assistance has had an impact on the ability for
Transit Services to provide website updates, detour notices, event assistance, bus stop, schedule and
route evaluations, and bus pass distribution. The proposed increase to the Transit Program budget
for contract services will address ensure the ability of the program to continue to perform and meet
its service obligations.
Budget Balancing Strategies
In order to assist in the overall effort to have a more sustainable budget, the Transit Enterprise Fund
continues to look for opportunities to reduce spending and make minor revenue adjustments.
Management salary concessions occurred at the beginning of 2012 and have been incorporated into the
fund analysis. Based on salary and benefit updates provided by Finance, 6.8% salary and benefits
concessions from SLOCEA, and increased City PERS contributions commencing July 1, 2013 are
integrated into the fund review.
FISCAL IMPACT
As shown in the Transit Enterprise Fund Analysis 2011-12 (Attachment 1), staff is projecting the
2012-13 fiscal year to end with a modest year-end working capital. Funding continues to be lean
and highly dependent upon Federal and State grants and final budget appropriations. While staff
does not project any service-level reductions for SLO Transit at this time, the projected revenue
forecasts give very little capacity for funding variations. Due to one-time-only funding increases, as
well as other cost savings and a minimal capital improvement program, staff is projecting to finish
2011-12 fiscal year with a small amount of positive cash flow. These projections are dependent
upon revenues provided by the State and Federal budgets, which have yet to be approved.
Changes in Financial Position is included as part of the 2011-12 Fund Analysis (Attachment 1 -
Exhibit A). Overall, revenues are projected to meet or exceed expenditures in 2011-12; leaving a
positive year-end balance of $96,500 as we move into next year. Should the final Federal
apportionment be significantly reduced from projected, the transit reserve fund will be needed to
support this deficit for the immediate shortfall.
The revised 2011-12 budget and projected funding for the 2012-13 Financial Plan includes
assumptions of revenues in key funding sources that have seen significant reductions by State
budget take-aways over the past three years. With the one-time State funding increases for FY 2013,
B2-545
Transit Enterprise Fund Review 2012 Page 6
staff projects ending the 2012-13 fiscal year with a small year-end savings of $67,700. Staff is
proposing a conservative budget, which minimizes capital projects, defers bus replacements and
maintains year-end reserves to address minor shortfalls in revenues.
Maintaining year-end working capital reserve funding is prudent for the following three reasons:
• Minimizing service-level impacts as a result of State and Federal budget reductions
• Minimizing service-level impacts as a result of purchased transportation operations and
maintenance contract costs
• Weathering volatile fuel prices
ALTERNATIVE
Modify the Fund Analysis. The City Council could reject the 2011-12 Transit Fund analysis as
presented and direct staff to seek additional funding sources, defer capital projects or provide transit
operating cost reductions. Staff does not recommend this option as the proposed fiscal forecast
provides the best "snapshot" of funding at this time based upon the current information provided by
the State and Federal government. Staff will continue to update the fiscal forecast and information
on funding sources as received, with an intention to defer capital projects if grant funds are not
realized.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transit Enterprise Fund Analysis 2011-12
2. Significant Operating Program Change
t:\council agenda reports\2012\2012-06-12\enterprise fund reports (bourbeau-malicoat)\transit enterprise fund review fy 2011-12\car transit fund review draft v1-06-12-2012.docx
B2-646
ATTACHMENT 1
Transit Enterprise Fund
Transit Enterprise
Fund
2012 Fund Analysis
June 12, 2012
B2-747
Attachment 1
Page 2
City of San Luis Obispo
2011-13 Transit Fund Analysis
Table of Contents
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3
II. 2011-13 FINANCIAL PLAN ................................................................................................. 5
a. Summary of Operating Programs ........................................................................................ 5
b. Capital Improvement Program ............................................................................................. 5
III. ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 6
a. General Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 6
c. Operating and Capital Expenditures .................................................................................... 8
d. Ridership and Evening Service .......................................................................................... 10
IV. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE .......................................................................................... 10
a. State, Federal and Regional Budget Impacts ..................................................................... 10
b. Operations and Maintenance Contract ............................................................................... 10
c. Volatile Fuel Prices ............................................................................................................ 10
V. EXHIBIT A – Changes in Financial Position ....................................................................... 12
B2-848
Attachment 1
Page 3
2011-13 Transit Fund Report
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents the financial position of the Transit Enterprise Fund, based on the 2011-13
Financial Plan operating program budget, projected 2011-12 year-end funding, and recommends
operating program and capital project requests to address the identified needs in the Transit
Services program.
While the State budget proposal does not make any significant changes to project funding for
transportation, the ever-turbulent Federal budget situation continues to delay the final Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) apportionment for transit-related program funding. As a result, the
Transit Enterprise Fund program moves cautiously into the 2012-13 fiscal year and is optimistic
that the estimated level of Federal funding will be approved.
State transit funding is predicted to increase for this fiscal year as a result of the better than
expected sales/gas tax/excise tax revenues and one-time carryover funding, which results in an
increase in State revenues of approximately 11% over current year. However, this increase in
funding is somewhat offset by an increase in the City’s subsidy to the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (SLORTA). Federal revenues are expected to be about the same as previous
year’s allocation, however; if the final Federal apportionment is significantly reduced from
projected, the Transit Enterprise Fund year-end reserves will be needed to support the deficit for
the immediate shortfall. Staff has included projections of expenditures in the operating budget
that are realistic, but if exceeded, will cause funding hardship.
The City successfully negotiated a five-year Subsidy Agreement with Cal Poly which began on
July 1, 2011. The SLO Transit budget projections for the 2012-13 fiscal year include a 4%
increase in the Cal Poly subsidy. If the State budget significantly affects Cal Poly's ability to
fund the Subsidy Agreement, the City and the University will undertake discussions on potential
program modifications or service-level reductions.
With these factors under consideration, staff is projecting a year free of service reductions but
one that is contingent on outside influences ultimately determining if service changes or fare
increases may be necessary.. Due to already conservative revenue projections, there is very little
room for funding variations should State and Federal funding come in below projections. Until
the State budget is approved, SLO Transit will not have final dollar amounts to rely upon.
Additionally, 2012-13 fiscal year is anticipated to be a very challenging year based on projected
revenue amounts. Staff will be monitoring the budget situation closely, and return later in the
year with any changes or reductions that require Council consideration. Capital expenditures will
be limited to projects that can be funded from grant revenues, keeping the local match required
to a minimum, and preserving as much for operating expenses as possible. If needed, the capital
purchases can be deferred, in the short-term, freeing up funds intended to be used as a local
match.
City of
San Luis Obispo
B2-949
Attachment 1
Page 4
Due to the need to program almost all available funding resources for support of transit
operations, there will not be significant capital funding available in the 2012-13 budget from the
conventional funding sources, such as State Transportation Development Act (TDA) and FTA
funding. Instead, it is likely that the City will need to continue to rely heavily on one-time only
grant sources to deliver needed vehicle replacements and other major capital expenses. These
funds are discretionary under the purview of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) and as such, have not been anticipated nor included as part of the budget forecasts.
However, staff will continue to seek these grants when available to assist in meeting capital
replacement needs.
Staff currently forecasts the 2012-13 budget as balanced, with revenues meeting or exceeding
expenditures. However, volatile fuel costs, additional costs associated with contract rebidding,
increase subsidy to SLORTA and unresolved issues at the State and Federal levels would affect
transit funding levels. The 2012-13 fiscal year will be challenging based on projected revenue
amounts. Staff will continue to monitor the budget situation closely, and return later in the year
with any changes or reductions that need to be considered.
Farebox Ratio
With the fare increase approved in 2009, SLO Transit’s farebox ratio was projected to stabilize
in 2010-11 and beyond. Staff projected the renegotiated Cal Poly Subsidy Agreement would be a
key component in meeting the required 20% farebox ratio for the SLO Transit system. There is a
definite negative impact from the new cost allocation plan and the main reason it has dropped
below the required 20% level The performance of the farebox ratio is the subject of Federal
audits that the Transit Services program undergoes on a regular basis and the new cost allocation
plan has not been formally accepted by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as of this
writing. If the cost allocation plan is rejected at the Federal level there is a risk that FTA Section
5307 funds could be withheld or denied. FTA Section 5307 funding is a major source of transit
revenue for operations, preventative maintenance and Capital projects. If the farebox ratio falls
consistently below the 20% level, then the City will be subject to losing additional State funding.
B2-1050
Attachment 1
Page 5
II. 2011-13 FINANCIAL PLAN
a. Summary of Operating Programs
The 2011-13 revised operating budget projections for the Transit Services Enterprise
Fund. Operating cost information for the Transit Services program is provided on
page D-86 of the 2011-13 Financial Plan.
2010-112011-122012-132013-14
Actual BudgetBudget Projected
Staffing 230,300$ 232,900$ 234,300$ 236,200$
Contract Services 2,237,800$ 2,427,300$ 2,559,200$ 2,622,500$
Other Operating Expenses 156,300$ 98,400$ 62,200$ 62,200$
Minor Capital -$ -$ -$ -$
Operating Budget 2,624,400$ 2,758,600$ 2,855,700$ 2,920,900$
General Government 357,200$ 476,500$ 416,500$ 416,500$
Total Transit Operating 2,981,600$ 3,235,100$ 3,272,200$ 3,337,400$
Transit Enterprise Fund
The Fund Analysis includes a reduction in staffing expenditures as a result of
employee concessions and increase in contract costs for purchased transportation
services, fuel and one-time contract services support during an interim leave of the
Deputy Director of Public Works. A significant increase to SLO Transit’s operating
expenditures is accounted for by a recent change in methodology for calculating
direct and indirect charges as part of the City’s Cost Allocation Plan.
b. Capital Improvement Program
The table below shows the 2011-13 revised Capital Improvement Program and
assumptions for capital projects. Both years of the Financial Plan are light in capital
expenditures due to the need to program almost all transit funding for operations and
maintenance. Fortunately, the City has been very successful in acquiring outside grant
funding to assist in capital projects, including vehicle replacements, in 2010-11 fiscal
year as shown in table below. There are no bus replacement capital projects scheduled
in the 2012-13 fiscal year and one service truck replacement projected for 2013-14.
The City will need to rely heavily on grants in the next two fiscal years to augment
the proposed Transit capital program of projects.
B2-1151
Attachment 1
Page 6
91006 FOXPRO REPLACE $ 23,000 -$ -$ -$
91022 LASERFICHE $ 2,400 -$ -$ -$
90918 DOUBLE-DECK REPLACEMENT 850,000$ -$ -$ -$
90921 ELECTRONIC FAREBOX UPGRADE 3,400$ -$ -$ -$
90920 AVL PASSENGER ACCESS SYSTEM 33,700$ -$ -$ -$
90922 TRANSIT FACILITY IMPR 1,000$ -$ -$ -$
99601 BUS MAINT FACILITY EXP 58,300$ -$ -$ -$
90996 FORKLIFT 30,000$ -$ -$ -$
90997 STAFF VEHICLE 50,000$ -$ -$ -$
90919 BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS 25,700$ -$ -$ -$
99001 BUS STOPS 400$ -$ -$ -$
91090 FACILITY SECURITY IMPR PROJ 48,100$ -$ -$ -$
91077 RADIO REPLACEMENT PROJECT 209,600$ -$ -$ -$
90998 DWNTWN TRANSIT COORD STUDY 125,000$ -$ -$ -$
91089 BUS CAPITAL ENGINE-REHAB 47,000$ -$ -$ -$
91086 BUS REPLACEMENT (Asset#9710)386,000$ 43,600$ -$ -$
91087 BUS REPLACEMENT (Asset# 9823) 419,500$ -$ -$ -$
91088 BUS REPLACEMENT (Asset# 9824)415,000$ -$ -$ -$
91122 SERVICE TRUCK RPLCMNT (Asset# 0028)-$ -$ -$ 44,000$
91104 CITY WEBSITE UPGRADE -$ 3,500$ -$ -$
91106 MICROSOFT OFFICE REPLACEMENT -$ 5,000$ -$ -$
9XXXX BUS STOP SAFETY SECURITY IMPR -$ -$ -$ 32,100$
2,728,100$ 52,100$ -$ 76,100$
Carryover from Previous Year 1,730,600$ -$
Total Capital Program Expenditures 2,728,100$ 1,782,700$ -$ 76,100$
2013-14
Projected
Capital Program Expenditures
2010-11
Actual
2011-12
Budget
2012-13
BudgetCAPITAL PROGRAMPROJECT
III. ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been used to forecast the Transit Enterprise Fund
analysis. The discussion below provides detail for the key assumptions used to generate
the changes in financial position as provided as Exhibit A. It is important to note the
proposed budget is a “snapshot” of current funding and expenditure projections as of
April 2012. The following discussion focuses on major issues that could have an affect
the Transit Enterprise Fund next fiscal year. These assumptions have been incorporated
into the 2011-13 budget projections.
a. General Assumptions
The Transit Enterprise Fund will commit all available transit funding to SLO
Transit and will carryover any unused funding for use in subsequent years and to
maintain an adequate year-end fund balance (reserve) to help weather budget
uncertainties.
b. Revenues, Subventions and Grants
Fare Revenue
Fare increases adopted by the City Council in April 2009 continue to help bring in
revenue to meet expenses and the farebox recovery ratio of 20% required by the
State. SLO Transit has proposed a conservative budget based upon revenue
projections. There is little ability for adjustment should the State and Federal
allocations come in significantly lower than projected. Staff will return to
B2-1252
Attachment 1
Page 7
Council for proposed service-level reductions or rate increases the decrease in
revenues be significant. A 3% increase in fare revenues have been projected in
the 2012-13 fiscal year based upon past experience with an increase in ridership
due to rising fuel costs.
Farebox Ratio
With the fare increase approved in 2009, SLO Transit’s farebox ratio was
projected to stabilize in 2010-11 and beyond. Staff projected the renegotiated Cal
Poly Subsidy Agreement would be a key component in meeting the required 20%
farebox ratio for the SLO Transit system. In the 2011-12 fiscal year, farebox
ratios have fallen slightly below the 20% required farebox ratio with a projected
annual average of 19.6% from 2011-12 through 2013-2014. This decrease in
farebox ratios is a direct result of a change in the City’s methodology for
calculating direct and indirect charges for Enterprise Funds that receive General
Fund program support. The revised Cost Allocation Plan, approved by Council
on May 15, 2012, resulted in a significant increase to Transit Services indirect
charges of $118,000 (33%) over previously projected amounts for the 2011-12
fiscal year. The Cost Allocation Plan, which affects the performance of farebox
ratio, is subject to Federal audits that the Transit Services program undergoes on a
regular basis. The revised Cost Allocation Plan is currently under review by the
FTA and awaiting formal agency approval.
Until recently, SLO Transit has consistently met the required 20% farebox ratio.
Had there not been a cost allocation increase, SLO Transit would have met the
farebox requirements in 2011-12 and beyond. If the farebox ratio falls
consistently below the 20% level, the City will be subject to a State funding
penalty, which would represent the difference between required revenues and
actual revenues received. SLO Transit would need to reduce service levels or
system costs by these amounts, increase fares, or face a significant loss of State
funding estimated at $258,000 over a 3-year period.
2010-112011-122012-132013-14
Fares 595,800$ 638,400$ 637,700$ 649,000$
Transit Operating 2,981,600$ 3,235,100$ 3,272,200$ 3,337,400$
Farebox Ratio 20.0%19.7%19.5%19.4%
Cost Reductions/Loss of State funding 0 (55,000)$ (96,500)$ (106,500)$
Mandatory 20% Farebox 20.0%20.1%20.1%20.1%
Cost Allocation Plan & Farebox Ratio Impact
Cal Poly Subsidy
The City successfully negotiated a five-year Subsidy Agreement with Cal Poly
which went into effect on July 1, 2011. The SLO Transit budget projections for
2012-13 fiscal year includes a 4% percent increase in the Cal Poly subsidy, with
increases in the subsequent three years. If the State budget significantly affects
Cal Poly's ability to fund the Subsidy Agreement, the City and the University will
B2-1353
Attachment 1
Page 8
undertake discussions on potential program modifications or service-level
reductions.
Local Transportation Act
The Local Transportation Fund (TDF) is State funding derived from the ¼ cent
retail sales tax. The Transit Enterprise Fund analysis assumes a 10% increase in
the 2012-13 fiscal year for LTF grant funds, as estimated by SLOCOG. This
funding increase is mainly due to increased sales tax revenue and one-time
allocation increase from carryover funds that are only be available in 2012-13.
The final State budget amounts for next fiscal year have not been released and
will likely affect the final funding levels.
State Transit Assistance
Although initially eliminated in 2009-10, the State Transit Assistance (STA)
funding was renewed under the State budget gas tax swap agreement and is
expected to provide SLO Transit with annual funding. The Transit Fund Analysis
includes an assumption of that $229,800 will be received in STA funding for
2012-13 and 2013-14.
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Transit Assistance (FTA) funding is formula-based upon population and
service level categories, and it is anticipated that SLO Transit will receive
$1,274,600 in 2012-13 and $1,329,700 in 2013-14. This Federal funding will be
used primarily for operating assistance of SLO Transit services. Actual Federal
allocations may vary due to changes in reporting statistics for these categories. Due
to recent changes in the reporting of these statistics, it is likely that the City could
need to share a larger portion of STIC funding with SLORTA. Additionally, the
2010 Census has the potential to show a reduction in the urbanized area’s
population density. This could result in reduced base FTA transit funding
allocation for SLO Transit for 2012-13 and beyond. The City is working with
SLOCOG to resolve this issue with the Census Bureau.
c. Operating and Capital Expenditures
Staffing
The Transit Services program staffing will remain consistent with a regular
staffing level of 2.32 full time equivalent (FTE) employees. The Transit
Enterprise Fund provides funding to support a full-time Transit Services Manager,
a Transportation Assistant and a shared part-time temporary worker position with
the General Fund Transportation Planning and Engineering Division for
alternative transportation programs and marketing services. Management salary
concessions occurred at the beginning of the 2012 and have been incorporated into
the fund analysis. Additional employee concessions are anticipated to be achieved in
the next fiscal year when general employee contract negotiations are complete.
Contract Services
In February 2012, Council approved a contract extension with First Transit, the
purchased transportation provider for SLO Transit services, through June 30,
2013. This assumption includes a 4% contract increase annually. An additional
extension agreement will need to be negotiated next fiscal year or a new Request
B2-1454
Attachment 1
Page 9
for proposals circulated for transit operations and maintenance in 2013-14 and
beyond. Not knowing which option will be recommended, staff has assumed a
3.2% increase in purchased transportation contract costs for the 2013-14 fiscal
year.
Due to the extended leave of the Deputy Director of Public Works, staff submitted a
program request for a one-time augment to contract services in the amount of $7,500
in the 2012-13 fiscal year. This funding will provide for additional contract services
to augment work efforts of the Transit Services program such as website updates,
detour notices, event assistance, bus stop, schedule and route evaluations and bus
pass distribution.
Fuel
Fuel costs are once again very volatile and as experienced in the 2008 and again
2010 when fuel prices increased significantly to almost $5 per gallon. Although
fuel prices are showing stabilization in April, staff projects fuel costs will
continue to rise over the next year and stabilize at a “new norm”. SLO Transit has
budgeted fuel costs at $4.32 per gallon with an average of 118,000 gallons of
diesel fuel purchased in a fiscal year. Staff projects this budget to be adequate in
the 2012-13 fiscal year. Should fuel prices increase significantly above
projections, staff will return to Council with identified service-level reductions.
General Government
The revised Cost Allocation Plan, approved by Council on May 15, 2012, resulted
in a significant increase to Transit Services indirect charges of 33% or $118,000
(33%) over previously projected amounts for the 2011-12 fiscal year. This
increase is attributed to a change in methodology for how the City calculates
direct and indirect charges for Enterprise Funds that receive General Fund
program support. The Cost Allocation Plan, which also affects the performance of
farebox ratio, is subject to Federal audits that the Transit Services program
undergoes on a regular basis. The revised Cost Allocation Plan is currently under
review by the FTA and awaiting formal agency approval.
Short Range Transit Plan
On May 5, 2009 the City Council adopted the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
update that was prepared by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Due to significant funding
constraints at this time, all available revenues are allocated to support SLO
Transit operating services. No new initiatives or increase in services, as
recommended in the SRTP, have been included in the Transit Enterprise Fund
analysis. These recommendations will be addressed and brought forward to
Council as funding sources are identified.
Capital Improvement Program
The Transit Fund analysis anticipates a conservative level of Federal funding
apportionment for in the 2012-13 fiscal year. This modest revenue projection will
provide support for operating assistance and preventive maintenance functions for
SLO Transit. As a direct result, no additional capital projects have been projected
as part of the Program of Projects (POP) in the 2012-13 fiscal year. However,
capital projects may be brought forward as part of a revised POP if Federal
B2-1555
Attachment 1
Page 10
funding allocations come in higher than projected.
The City will need to rely heavily on grant sources, such as Proposition 1B, to
secure funding for vehicle replacements and other major capital items. No
additional bus replacements are proposed at this time as part of the Financial Plan
and instead will need to be brought forward as individual grants are received
d. Ridership and Evening Service
Staff has estimated SLO Transit ridership to increase at a modest 3% in 2012-13
if existing service-levels are maintained. The Evening Service program is
estimated at approximately 31,500 miles at an annual net cost to the Transit
Services program (minus fare revenues) of $118,000 annually. The Evening
Service program does not deliver significant additional revenue to assist with
farebox recovery ratios. The Transit Enterprise Fund analysis does not include
any assumptions in reductions for Evening Service program levels at this time.
Overall, SLO Transit fare rates and revenues are adequate to support current
operations for the 2012-13 fiscal year. Should revenue sources decline
significantly from projected, staff will return to Council with recommendations
for service-level reductions or fare modifications as necessary.
IV. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
a. State, Federal and Regional Budget Impacts
Overall, the Governor’s May 2012 revision to the State budget does not make any
significant changes to funding for transportation or public transit. The budget
language states that the reenactment of the gas tax swap (AB 105, Chapter 6,
Statutes of 2011), which was completed in March 2011, provided the State’s
General Fund with $903.5 million in relief for 2010-11. While the legislature has
approved the Transportation Trailer Bill (AB105), the measure has not been sent
to the Governor’s desk for a signature and is not expected until the Governor’s
entire State budget proposal is approved. Ultimately, the final impact on the SLO
Transit budget remains unknown until the State budget is approved. Any further
reductions of funding to the City, Cal Poly or SLORTA could have a significant
impact on service-level funding for the 2012-13 fiscal year and beyond.
b. Operations and Maintenance Contract
The purchased transportation contract is set to expire on June 30, 2013. Staff is
currently analyzing whether to recommend a contract extension agreement or to
solicit proposals for this service. Staff will return to Council in the 2012-13 fiscal
year with a recommendation for continued purchased transportation services.
c. Volatile Fuel Prices
Staff continues to exercise prudent judgment in projecting budgets for fuel needed
for the SLO Transit system. Highly volatile fuel prices continue to pose
challenges in balancing the budget. After analyzing fuel cost trends, staff feels
confident that the level of budget project for fuel is adequate to support fuel costs
in the 2012-13 fiscal year. Staff will continue to analyze fuel trends and make
budget adjustments as necessary. However, should fuel prices increase
B2-1656
Attachment 1
Page 11
significantly above staff projections, staff will return to Council with identified
service-level reductions.
B2-1757
Attachment 1
Page 12
V. EXHIBIT A – Changes in Financial Position
2011-13
TRANSIT FUND
FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
B2-1858
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - TRANSIT FUND
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 5,100 5,600 21,600 5,700 5,800
Subventions and Grants
TDA Grants (LTF, STA)992,400 1,046,200 1,379,300 1,416,9001,416,900
Other Grants (ARRA, Prop 1B, Other)979,100 1,290,300 1,160,000 0 32,100
FTA Grants 1,331,000 2,663,500 1,883,900 1,274,6001,329,700
Service Charges 584,900 592,800 638,400 637,700 649,000
Other Revenues (33,000)22,500 18,100 5,000 5,000
Total Revenues 3,859,5005,620,900 5,101,300 3,339,900 3,438,500
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 2,446,200 2,624,400 2,758,600 2,855,7002,920,900
General Government 350,200 357,200 476,500 416,500 416,500
Total Operating Programs 2,796,400 2,981,600 3,235,100 3,272,200 3,337,400
Capital Improvement Plan 986,500 2,728,100 1,782,700 0 76,100
Total Expenditures 3,782,9005,709,700 5,017,800 3,272,200 3,413,500
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Expenditure Savings 0 0 0
Operating Expenditure Adjustment 33,300 0 0
Projected MOA Adjustments - - 13,000 0 -
Projected Debt Proceeds
Other Sources (Uses)0 0 0
Total Other Sources (Uses)- 13,000 - -
Revenues and Other Sources over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 76,100 (88,800) 96,500 67,700 25,000
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 726,800 838,600 998,700 1,156,400 1,213,800
Working Capital, End of Year Fund Reserves 838,600 998,700 1,095,200 1,224,1001,238,800
Unadjusted Fare/Cost Ratio 20.9%19.9%19.7%19.5%19%
B2-1959
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - TRANSIT FUND
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 5,100 5,600 21,600 5,700 5,800
Subventions and Grants
TDA Grants (LTF, STA)992,400 1,046,200 1,379,300 1,416,900 1,416,900
Other Grants (ARRA, Prop 1B, Other)979,100 1,290,300 1,160,000 0 32,100
FTA Grants 1,331,000 2,663,500 1,883,900 1,274,600 1,329,700
Service Charges 584,900 592,800 638,400 637,700 649,000
Other Revenues (33,000)22,500 18,100 5,000 5,000
Total Revenues 3,859,500 5,620,900 5,101,300 3,339,900 3,438,500
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 2,446,200 2,624,400 2,758,600 2,855,700 2,920,900
General Government 350,200 357,200 475,000 416,500 416,500
Total Operating Programs 2,796,400 2,981,600 3,233,600 3,272,200 3,337,400
Capital Improvement Plan 986,500 2,728,100 1,782,700 0 76,100
Total Expenditures 3,782,900 5,709,700 5,016,300 3,272,200 3,413,500
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Expenditure Savings 0 0 0
Operating Expenditure Adjustment 33,300 0 0
Projected MOA Adjustments - - 13,000 0 -
Projected Debt Proceeds
Other Sources (Uses)0 0 0
Total Other Sources (Uses)- 13,000 - -
Revenues and Other Sources over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 76,100 (88,800) 98,000 67,700 25,000
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 726,800 838,600 998,700 1,156,400 1,213,800
Working Capital, End of Year Fund Reserves 838,600 998,700 1,096,700 1,224,100 1,238,800
Unadjusted Fare/Cost Ratio 20.9%19.9%19.7%19.5%19.4%
B2-2060
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
President: Fred Strong Vice President: Adam Hill
Board Members:
Frank Mecham (First District – SLO County)
Bruce Gibson (Second District – SLO County)
Adam Hill (Third District – SLO County)
Paul Teixeira (Fourth District – SLO County)
James Patterson (Fifth District – SLO County)
Tony Ferrara (Arroyo Grande)
Tom O’Malley (Atascadero)
John Shoals (Grover Beach)
William Yates (Morro Bay)
Fred Strong (Paso Robles)
Shelly Higginbotham (Pismo Beach)
Jan Howell Marx (San Luis Obispo)
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER, ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC COMMENT: The Committee reserves this portion of the agenda for members of the
public to address the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority Executive Committee on any
items not on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Comments are limited to
three minutes per speaker. The Committee will listen to all communication, but in compliance
with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda.
A. INFORMATION AGENDA
A-1 Executive Director’s Report (Receive)
B. ACTION AGENDA
B-1 RTA FY12-13 Budget (Approve)
B-2 Charter Services Policy and Procedures (Approve)
B-3 Operation of Cambria Trolley Services (Authorize Execution of Agreement)
B-4 Proposed Pass Price Increases (Approve)
BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 8:30 AM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ CHAMBER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
The AGENDA is available/posted at: http://www.slorta.org
Individuals wishing accessibility accommodations at this meeting under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may
request such accommodations to aid hearing, visual, or mobility impairment by contacting the SLORTA offices at 781-
4472. Please note that 48 hours advance notice will be necessary to honor a request.
70
B-5 Operation of County Services (Approve)
C. CONSENT AGENDA: (Roll Call Vote) the following items are considered routine
and non-controversial by staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the
SLORTA or public wishes an item be removed. If discussion is desired by anyone, the item
will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately. Questions of
clarification may be made by RTA Board members, without the removal of the item from the
Consent Agenda. Staff recommendations for each item are noted following the item.
C-1 Executive Committee meeting minutes of February 8, 2012 (Approve)
C-2 RTA Board meeting minutes of March 7, 2012 (Approve)
C-3 RTAC Bylaws revision (Approve)
C-4 Reappoint Eric Greening to RTAC (Approve)
C-5 AGP Contract for FY12-13 (Approve)
C-6 Resolution for 5311 and 5311F Application (Approve)
C-7 ECHO-Web Authorization and Certification (Approve)
C-8 Prop 1B Safety and Security for 2011/2012: Transit System Safety, Security
and Disaster Response Account Program and Authorized Agent Signature
Authority (Approve)
D. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
D-1 It is the intention of the Board to meet in closed session concerning the
following pending litigation (Government Code, section 54956.9.):
D-1-1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government
Code, section 54956.9(a).) (Formally initiated) Complete Coach Works vs.
RTA (CIVDS111026).
E. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next RTA meeting: July 11, 2012
71
A-1-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: A-1
TOPIC: Executive Director’s Report
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Information
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Operations:
As reported last meeting, nine driver trainee cadets had finished training and were
operating in revenue service, while the tenth cadet was being provided additional
training. Unfortunately, the tenth cadet ultimately did not work out and is no longer with
RTA. The good news is that the remaining nine employees are working well with our
team, and they have helped us cover open driver shifts and reduce overtime costs.
Staff is still reviewing the per trainee costs of recruiting, hiring, training and retaining
drivers, and will report that information back to the Board at a future meeting.
Maintenance:
Staff continues to do an excellent job in maintaining the aging fleet – two of which one
million miles each. Bus 161 returned to service in March after receiving a rebuilt engine
from local vendor Brumit Diesel in Santa Maria. Bus 1101 was out of service at Gibbs
International in Nipomo for two weeks to address a differential repair that would be
covered under warranty, but the bus was ultimately repaired by RTA staff with guidance
from the bus manufacturer.
Service Planning:
Staff is evaluating customer, transit partner and bus operator feedback as well as
ridership data for the next round of service modifications scheduled for June 10, 2012.
Staff is also proposing that the RTA 31-day pass price be increased from $40.00 to
$44.00 and the Regional 31-day pass from $60.00 to $64.00. Discounted 31-day
passes would only be increased $2.00. Based on input from a series of four public
meetings in Atascadero, Los Osos, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo – as well as my
on-bus “Mobile Office Hours” – in late-March and early-April, riders almost universally
understand and support our need to increase monthly pass prices. Consideration of this
proposal is included as item B-4 in your agenda packet.
Service improvement opportunities include:
• Increased express bus service to reduce the number of standing passenger
loads.
72
A-1-2
• Possible realignment of the RTA schedule to increase service between Los Osos
and Morro Bay.
• Continued LOVR service, but focused on peak commute times only.
• Route #14 – Extra evening trip to Cuesta, allowing students to make transfer
connections.
• Route #9 local – 2-4 minute modifications to bus stop departures, including
moving up the first timepoints in Paso Robles and San Miguel by up to 5 minutes
to allow for more recovery time allowance at the GC.
• Route #10 local – 2-4 minute time adjustments at bus stops in Santa Maria and
Nipomo.
• Elimination of 1-2 unproductive weekend trips on the North Coast, possibly to
fund re-implemented Cambria Trolley service (see item B-3 in your Board
agenda packet).
• Elimination of one unproductive round-trip express service between Los Osos
and downtown SLO.
RTA staff continues to participate with stakeholders and the consultants engaged in the
following planning efforts:
• Downtown Transit Center Study – RTA worked with SLOCOG staff to develop
support letters for funding to prepare environmental analyses for this project. I
attended a presentation on the project to the SLO City Council on April 17th.
• North County Transit Plan – RTA staff continues to work closely through frequent
teleconference calls and public presentations to wrap up this study, and I
attended the consultant’s presentation to the City of Paso Robles on April 3rd.
• SLOCOG and SLO Transit on evaluating improved service coordination along
the South Higuera Corridor. We anticipate publishing a draft report by the end of
April, which we will present to SLOCOG.
• US 101 Bus Rapid Transit Study – we continue to work with SLOCOG staff to
develop final scope of work elements for this project.
RTA staff worked with the Cambria Tourism Board and the Business Improvement
District to develop a two-year contract to partially fund the reimplementation of the
Cambria Trolley, which would operate four days/week from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
The draft Operating Agreement for the Cambria Trolley Service and an accompanying
staff report is provided in your Board packet as item B-3 in your agenda packet.
73
A-1-3
Marketing:
Staff continues to make progress on selling all available advertising space, as well as
implementing a new marketing campaign on the inside and outside of RTA/SCAT
buses.
Staff continues to work with Regional Rideshare to plan for Summer Youth Ride Free
promotions that will be honored by all fixed route services in San Luis Obispo County
(with the exception of the Paso Robles Express). RTA operated fare-free Trolley service
to the Earth Day event at Chorro Regional Park (April 22, 2012), in partnership with
SLO Transit and Regional Rideshare. Another upcoming events is Bike Month in May.
I participated as a guest on Charter Local Edition – San Luis Obispo on April 6th and on
an “Idling Gets You Nowhere” campaign launched by Representative Capps on April
10th at Laguna Junior High School. As mentioned above, I also conducted “Mobile
Office Hours” in late-March and early-April on RTA routes and at the GC passenger
facility, where I was provided the opportunity to talk face-to-face with drivers and riders.
By all accounts, this effort was well-received and I gained some great insight into RTA
services. I plan to continue that sort of outreach in the future.
Finance and Administration:
The big news is that the SCAT service area has been designated as a federally-
recognized Urbanized Area (UZA). Unfortunately, the Nipomo area isn’t getting good
news – it has been removed from the Santa Maria UZA, and it has not been included in
the new “Arroyo Grande – Grover Beach Urbanized Area.” It should be noted that I have
received feedback from Pismo Beach officials that they would like support to request the
Census Bureau amend the official UZA name to include Pismo Beach.
The RTA Regional Transportation Advisory Committee met in quorum on April 18. The
RTAC took action by recommending Board adoption of the proposed RTA FY12-13
Budget, with the caveat that any unused Proposition 1B funds for the bus procurement
project be used to reduce the use of STA funds for capital projects; any unused STA
funds would then be considered by the RTA Board for redistribution to the affected
jurisdictions. RTA staff supports this recommendation. The RTAC also recommended
RTA Board adoption of slight revisions to the May 2006 RTAC Bylaws, which would
formalize the process of selecting alternate members to help avoid future difficulties
attaining a quorum. The RTAC also recommended re-appointing Eric Greening to the
committee; that recommendation for reappointment is included as item C-4 in your
agenda packet.
RTA finalized details with County officials to formally assume operations of and become
the TDA grantee for all County transit services. A final agreement has been included in
your Board packet for consideration. Once executed by RTA, the contract will be
brought to the County Board of Supervisors for ratification.
74
A-1-4
RTA staff continues to be aggressive in seeking outside funding in order to minimize the
amount of jurisdiction TDA funds needed to operate RTA and SCAT services. Since the
last RTA Board meeting, we submitted FTA Section 5307 and State of Good Repair
grant applications to fund the on-going need for a long-term operations/maintenance
facility, continued service to Santa Maria, vehicle replacement, and operations
reimbursement. We also submitted a JARC grant application for Santa Maria and North
Coast services. RTA received notice in late-March that we were awarded an RTF grant
to implement a ticket kiosk at the County offices, for operations reimbursement, and for
local match on vehicle replacement projects. This information is detailed in the Budget
Report.
February 2012 financials are included the Board packet. Results continue to remain in
line with budget projections. Staff continues to be very cautious about where fuel prices
are headed.
Fixed route ridership continues to remain strong; through February we have boarded
289,217 riders on the core Route 9 & 10 services, in comparison to 243,146 in FY11.
YTD fixed route fare revenue totaled $808,080, and we are well on our way toward
exceeding budgeted annual fare revenues.
Ridership has also increased for Runabout (22,262 YTD FY12 vs. 21,490 YTD in
FY11), resulting in a 3.6% increase compared to last year.
In an effort to outreach to local governments, I have introduced myself during public
comments at city council meetings in Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Paso Robles, San
Luis Obispo (both their city council and Mass Transit Committee). I also attended the
Avila Business Association and North Coast Business Improvement District meetings to
introduce myself and seek their input on proposed service revisions for the Avila Trolley
and Cambria Trolley, respectively. I plan to introduce myself to the city councils at
Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and Morro Bay in the near future.
Unmet Transit Needs update
As you know, the SLOCOG Board made a finding at its April 4, 2012 meeting that there
are no new unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the county. We
appreciate the strong working relationship RTA and SLOCOG staff has developed over
the years on this and other planning matters.
Potential RTA Board Member Stipend
As mentioned during the March RTA Board meeting, SLOCOG pays its municipal Board
representatives $100 per meeting, yet the RTA does not compensate its Board directors
for regularly scheduled meetings. There appeared to be some interest in RTA
developing its own stipend policy, and staff is currently investigating potential scenarios
that might be supported at RTA. It is my intent to bring a draft policy to the Board in
January 2013.
75
A-1-5
RTA/SCAT Vehicle Procurement Update
RTA continues to work with potential bus vendors to obtain best and final pricing for the
purchase of seven replacement low-floor clean diesel buses for RTA and three for
SCAT. We are still finalizing the details of the final vehicle configuration, including the
issue of whether or not 40-foot buses would be appropriate for SCAT in the long term.
We convinced two bus manufacturers to bring demonstrator buses to the region in
March, which provided an up close review for our drivers, elected officials and city staff
of the types of buses that we will purchase.
RTA Charter Policy
Staff has developed a Charter Services Policy and Procedures document for your
Board’s consideration, as detailed in B-2. In short, we are proposing to operate bus
charter services within a limited service area of San Luis Obispo County that would only
be provided individually following approval from the FTA Administrator as a regionally
significant event, as well as charters for government officials on official government
business.
RTA JPA Amendment
Staff continues to work with RTA Counsel Tim McNulty on amending the RTA Joint
Powers Agreement to include a provision for alternates and for borrowing purposes. It is
our intent to bring recommended changes to your Board at the July meeting.
AB1706 – Bus Axle Weights
The CA Vehicle Code 35554, which was codified in 1975, identifies a maximum “on the
ground” weight of 20,500 pounds per axle. However, as buses have become heavier
over time – primarily due to emissions and ADA access features – some transit buses
exceed this limit, particularly when standing passenger loads are transported. RTA staff
understands public works departments’ concerns over axle weights and the impact on
roadways, and we have actively sought new vehicles that are lighter than the buses we
have purchased in the past. However, even those measures will not completely avoid
the occasional exceeding of the 20,500 pound limit when the bus is full of passengers.
AB1706 would permit continued operation of current-weight buses while a study is
completed by 2015. RTA staff desires Board support for this bill.
76
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted
Operating Year to Percent of
Budget January February February February Date Total Budget
FY 2011-12 Actual Budget Actual Variance FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12
Hours 59,614 4,771 4,968 4,730 237 37,880 63.54%
Miles 1,502,277 127,324 125,190 125,726 (536) 1,014,772 67.55%
Administration:
Labor operations cost 714,189 57,793 59,516 47,542 11,974 387,302 54.23%
Office Space Rental operations cost 416,678 33,366 34,723 36,004 (1,280) 277,681 66.64%
Professional Technical Services operations cost 105,500 4,585 2,650 2,507 143 37,639 35.68%
Professional Development operations cost 10,000 - 600 588 12 1,951 19.51%
Operating Expense operations cost 185,605 12,958 15,467 12,334 3,133 107,982 58.18%
Marketing and Reproduction hourly 80,000 2,840 6,333 1,314 5,020 22,479 28.10%
Insurance miles/operations cost 495,016 22,942 41,251 22,930 18,322 207,669 41.95%
County Management Contract operations cost (175,000)(14,583) (14,583)(14,583) - (116,667) 66.67%
SCAT Management Contract operations cost (77,500)(6,458) (6,458) (6,458) - (51,667) 66.67%
Total Administration 1,754,488 113,442 139,499 102,175 37,324 874,370 49.84%
Service Delivery:-
Labor - Operations hourly 2,419,945 258,708 201,662 213,011 (11,349) 1,573,594 65.03%
Labor - Maintenance hourly 649,954 65,139 54,163 47,672 6,491 404,967 62.31%
Fuel miles 1,203,605 106,700 100,300 111,161 (10,861) 838,076 69.63%
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a 82,700 6,250 6,892 5,720 1,171 46,210 55.88%
Avila Trolley n/a 60,000 4,500 5,000 2,565 2,435 33,646 56.08%
Senior Shuttle n/a 70,000 5,863 5,833 6,085 (251) 48,557 69.37%
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)hourly 421,900 27,475 35,158 52,099 (16,941) 310,149 73.51%
Maintenance Contract Costs hourly 150,190 14,190 12,516 20,770 (8,254) 86,690 57.72%
Total Operations 5,058,294 488,825 421,524 459,084 (37,559) 3,341,888 66.07%
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 4,700 - - - - 5,258 111.86%
Miscellaneous Capital (Staff vehicle, Shop Equipment)hourly
Air Compressor hourly 2,900 - - - - - 0.00%
Pressure Washer and Upholstery Cleaner hourly 9,950 - - - - - 0.00%
Tire Changer and Wheel Balancer hourly 13,200 - - - - - 0.00%
Driver Seats (six)hourly 11,700 - 11,700 11,583 117 11,583 99.00%
Vehicle Bike Racks hourly 22,400 - - - - - 0.00%
Camera System hourly 61,787 - - - - - 0.00%
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 100,000 - - - - 33,392 33.39%
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 160,000 - - - - - 0.00%
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly 185,150 - - - - 178,202 96.25%
One 40' Coach hourly 400,000 - - - - 389,118 97.28%
Three Runabout Vehicles hourly 223,000 - - - - - 0.00%
Total Capital Outlay 1,194,787 - 11,700 11,583 117 617,552 51.69%
Contingency hourly 100,000 - 8,333 - 8,333 20,395 20.40%
Interest Expense operations cost 225,000 15,761 18,750 14,740 4,010 129,139 57.40%
Loan Paydown 191,845 - - - - 154,131 80.34%
Management Contracts 252,500 21,042 21,042 21,042 - 168,333 66.67%
TOTAL FUNDING USES 8,776,913 639,070 620,848 608,623 12,225 5,305,809 60.45%
TOTAL NON-CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 7,390,281 639,070 609,148 597,040 12,108 4,534,126 61.35%
77
4/19/2012
1:44 PM
RT 9 RT 10 RT 11 RT 13 RT 12 RT 14 RT 15 RT 83 TOTAL
P.R., TEMP.,S.M.,LOS OSOS,LOS OSOS,MORRO CUESTA,SAN SIM.,FORT WEEKDAY
ATAS., S.M.,NIPOMO,MORRO SOUTH BAY,SAN LUIS CAMBRIA,HUNTER
CAL POLY,A.G.,BAY SAN LUIS CUESTA,TRIPPER CAYUCOS,LIGGETT
S.L.O.S.L.O.SAN LUIS M.B.
REVENUES:
FARES 27,499 27,923 3,632 2,326 15,363 2,458 2,096 8,014 89,310
TOTAL ROUTE REVENUES 27,499 27,923 3,632 2,326 15,363 2,458 2,096 8,014 89,310
EXPENDITURES:
ADMINISTRATION 15,471 14,970 4,095 3,814 6,556 2,274 3,889 1,819 52,886
MARKETING 357 346 95 88 151 53 90 0 1,179
OPERATIONS/CONTINGENCY 49,141 47,550 13,007 12,114 20,823 7,223 12,352 5,778 167,988
FUEL 22,213 25,279 4,138 3,966 8,574 2,244 6,394 4,268 77,077
INSURANCE 4,015 4,569 748 717 1,550 406 1,156 771 13,931
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 91,196 92,714 22,083 20,699 37,654 12,199 23,880 12,637 313,062
FAREBOX RATIO 30.15%30.12%16.44%11.24%40.80%20.15%8.78%63.41%28.53%
RIDERSHIP 17,768 18,257 2,508 1,645 14,007 2,615 1,367 598 58,765
SERVICE MILES 22,512.00 25,620.00 4,193.70 4,019.40 8,689.80 2,274.30 6,480.60 4,326.00 78,115.80
SERVICE HOURS 739.41 715.47 195.72 182.28 313.32 108.68 185.85 86.94 2,527.67
RIDERS PER MILE 0.79 0.71 0.60 0.41 1.61 1.15 0.21 0.14 0.75
RIDERS PER HOUR 24.03 25.52 12.81 9.02 44.71 24.06 7.36 6.88 23.25
COST PER PASSENGER 5.13 5.08 8.80 12.58 2.69 4.66 17.47 21.13 5.33
SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 3.58 3.55 7.36 11.17 1.59 3.73 15.94 7.73 3.81
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SYSTEM ANALYSIS FOR MONTH ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 2012 - WEEKDAYS ONLY
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR - 2011/2012
Feb
G:\OWP 2011-2012\RTA-Fixed & Runabout\Financial Administration(Budget,Funding,Audits,Fin Stmt,Invoices)\Financial Monitoring\Financial Statements & Mgmt Reports\RTA Fin Stmt by Rte FY1112 starting August 2011.xls78
4/19/2012
1:44 PM
RT 9 SAT RT 9 SUN RT 10 SAT RT 10 SUN RT 15 SAT RT 15 SUN TOTAL TOTAL RUNABOUT SYSTEM
P.R., TEMP.,P.R., TEMP.,S.M.,S.M.,SAN SIM.,SAN SIM.,WEEKEND FIXED TOTAL
ATAS., S.M.,ATAS., S.M.,NIPOMO,NIPOMO,MORRO MORRO ROUTE
CAL POLY,CAL POLY,A.G.,A.G.,BAY,BAY,
S.L.O.S.L.O.S.L.O.S.L.O.SAN LUIS SAN LUIS
REVENUES:
FARES 1,335 737 1,643 936 1,250 1,065 6,966 96,275 7,942 104,217
TOTAL ROUTE REVENUES 1,335 737 1,643 936 1,250 1,065 6,966 96,275 7,942 104,217
EXPENDITURES:
ADMINISTRATION 904 678 809 607 1,359 1,486 5,843 58,729 40,245 98,974
MARKETING 21 16 19 14 31 34 135 1,314 0 1,314
OPERATIONS/CONTINGENCY 2,871 2,153 2,571 1,927 4,317 4,719 18,558 186,546 127,834 314,380
FUEL 1,322 991 1,251 935 1,821 2,124 8,445 85,522 23,585 109,107
INSURANCE 239 179 226 169 329 384 1,526 15,457 6,964 22,421
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,357 4,017 4,876 3,653 7,858 8,747 34,507 347,568 198,628 546,196
FAREBOX RATIO 24.92%18.35%33.70%25.63%15.90%12.17%20.19%27.70%4.00%19.08%
RIDERSHIP 820 462 963 515 670 537 3,967 62,732 2,847 65,579
SERVICE MILES 1,340.00 1,004.00 1,268.00 948.00 1,845.60 2,152.80 8,558.40 86,674.20 39,052.00 125,726.20
SERVICE HOURS 43.20 32.40 38.68 29.00 64.96 71.00 279.24 2,806.91 1,923.48 4,730.39
RIDERS PER MILE 0.61 0.46 0.76 0.54 0.36 0.25 0.46 0.72 0.07 0.52
RIDERS PER HOUR 18.98 14.26 24.90 17.76 10.31 7.56 14.21 22.35 1.48 13.86
COST PER PASSENGER 6.53 8.69 5.06 7.09 11.73 16.29 8.70 5.54 69.77 8.33
SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 4.90 7.10 3.36 5.27 9.86 14.30 6.94 4.01 66.98 6.74
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SYSTEM ANALYSIS FOR MONTH ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 2012
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR - 2011/2012
Feb
G:\OWP 2011-2012\RTA-Fixed & Runabout\Financial Administration(Budget,Funding,Audits,Fin Stmt,Invoices)\Financial Monitoring\Financial Statements & Mgmt Reports\RTA Fin Stmt by Rte FY1112 starting August 2011.xls79
4/19/2012
1:46 PM
RT 9 RT 10 RT 11 RT 13 RT 12 RT 14 RT 15 RT 83 TOTAL
P.R., TEMP.,S.M.,LOS OSOS,LOS OSOS,MORRO CUESTA,SAN SIM.,FORT WEEKDAY
ATAS., S.M.,NIPOMO,MORRO SOUTH BAY,SAN LUIS CAMBRIA,HUNTER
CAL POLY,A.G.,BAY SAN LUIS CUESTA,TRIPPER CAYUCOS,LIGGETT
S.L.O.S.L.O.SAN LUIS M.B.
REVENUES:
FARES 214,316 231,993 27,416 20,080 150,261 21,603 16,195 64,109 745,973
TOTAL ROUTE REVENUES 214,316 231,993 27,416 20,080 150,261 21,603 16,195 64,109 745,973
EXPENDITURES:
ADMINISTRATION 127,866 127,158 29,703 27,691 60,750 14,885 31,524 13,686 433,264
MARKETING 6,100 5,942 1,573 1,466 2,668 792 1,567 24 20,132
OPERATIONS/CONTINGENCY 356,930 353,224 85,250 79,485 166,541 43,533 88,972 40,977 1,214,913
FUEL 163,989 189,087 27,361 26,245 68,900 13,664 46,574 31,357 567,178
INSURANCE 35,882 41,756 5,455 5,232 15,853 2,742 9,877 6,896 123,694
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 690,768 717,168 149,342 140,120 314,712 75,616 178,514 92,940 2,359,180
FAREBOX RATIO 31.03%32.35%18.36%14.33%47.75%28.57%9.07%68.98%31.62%
RIDERSHIP 132,499 134,836 15,786 11,674 99,106 16,020 9,415 5,038 424,374
SERVICE MILES 179,795.40 207,241.00 30,093.80 28,865.40 75,380.60 16,338.60 51,087.47 34,402.00 623,204.27
SERVICE HOURS 5,923.65 5,873.51 1,397.11 1,302.39 2,781.51 772.79 1,468.45 691.38 20,210.79
RIDERS PER MILE 0.74 0.65 0.52 0.40 1.31 0.98 0.18 0.15 0.68
RIDERS PER HOUR 22.37 22.96 11.30 8.96 35.63 20.73 6.41 7.29 21.00
COST PER PASSENGER 5.21 5.32 9.46 12.00 3.18 4.72 18.96 18.45 5.56
SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 3.60 3.60 7.72 10.28 1.66 3.37 17.24 5.72 3.80
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
YEAR TO DATE THRU FEBRUARY 29, 2012 - WEEKDAYS ONLY
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR - 2011/2012
YTD SUM (New Routes)
G:\OWP 2011-2012\RTA-Fixed & Runabout\Financial Administration(Budget,Funding,Audits,Fin Stmt,Invoices)\Financial Monitoring\Financial Statements & Mgmt Reports\RTA Fin Stmt by Rte FY1112 starting August 2011.xls80
4/19/2012
1:46 PM
RT 9 SAT RT 9 SUN RT 10 SAT RT 10 SUN RT 15 SAT RT 15 SUN TOTAL TOTAL RUNABOUT SYSTEM
P.R., TEMP.,P.R., TEMP.,S.M.,S.M.,SAN SIM.,SAN SIM.,WEEKEND FIXED TOTAL
ATAS., S.M.,ATAS., S.M.,NIPOMO,NIPOMO,MORRO MORRO ROUTE
CAL POLY,CAL POLY,A.G.,A.G.,BAY,BAY,
S.L.O.S.L.O.S.L.O.S.L.O.SAN LUIS SAN LUIS
REVENUES:
FARES 12,377 7,175 12,722 9,704 10,770 9,359 62,107 808,080 63,844 871,924
TOTAL ROUTE REVENUES 12,377 7,175 12,722 9,704 10,770 9,359 62,107 808,080 63,844 871,924
EXPENDITURES:
ADMINISTRATION 7,916 5,724 7,238 5,217 12,083 11,841 50,020 483,284 329,272 812,556
MARKETING 374 261 337 234 581 562 2,349 22,481 0 22,481
OPERATIONS/CONTINGENCY 22,138 15,986 20,165 14,524 33,816 33,422 140,051 1,354,964 908,157 2,263,121
FUEL 10,250 7,398 9,917 7,118 14,886 15,312 64,880 632,058 184,662 816,720
INSURANCE 2,288 1,665 2,245 1,621 3,378 3,370 14,567 138,261 63,774 202,035
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 42,966 31,034 39,903 28,714 64,743 64,507 271,867 2,631,047 1,485,865 4,116,913
FAREBOX RATIO 28.81%23.12%31.88%33.80%16.63%14.51%22.84%30.71%4.30%21.18%
RIDERSHIP 6,637 3,994 6,467 4,794 5,811 5,000 32,703 457,077 22,262 479,339
SERVICE MILES 11,346.90 8,165.30 10,970.00 7,851.00 16,485.60 16,919.60 71,738.40 694,942.67 319,623.00 1,014,565.67
SERVICE HOURS 368.63 265.20 336.26 241.25 563.97 552.15 2,327.46 22,538.25 15,338.08 37,876.33
RIDERS PER MILE 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.61 0.35 0.30 0.46 0.66 0.07 0.47
RIDERS PER HOUR 18.00 15.06 19.23 19.87 10.30 9.06 14.05 20.28 1.45 12.66
COST PER PASSENGER 6.47 7.77 6.17 5.99 11.14 12.90 8.31 5.76 66.74 8.59
SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 4.61 5.97 4.20 3.97 9.29 11.03 6.41 3.99 63.88 6.77
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
YEAR TO DATE THRU FEBRUARY 29, 2012
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR - 2011/2012
YTD SUM (New Routes)
G:\OWP 2011-2012\RTA-Fixed & Runabout\Financial Administration(Budget,Funding,Audits,Fin Stmt,Invoices)\Financial Monitoring\Financial Statements & Mgmt Reports\RTA Fin Stmt by Rte FY1112 starting August 2011.xls81
RTA KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
9 10 11-15 9 10 15
On time performance 92%94%96%94%96%75%90%
Roadcalls 12 0
Customer comments
Complaints 0
Compliments 2
9 10 11-15 9 10 15
On time performance 92%96%96%93%93%86%88%
Roadcalls 50 8
Customer comments
Complaints 3
Compliments 4
2
February 2012
Fixed Route
RunaboutWeekdayWeekendTotal
7
18
Year to Date - Through February 2012
Fixed Route
RunaboutWeekdayWeekendTotal
55
82
83
84
85
B-1-1
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY VISION STATEMENT, VISION ELEMENTS, MISSION
STATEMENT AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION
VISION
The RTA of the future is an integral part of the “SLO lifestyle.” From the vineyards in North
County, to the secluded beach towns on the North Coast, to multi-faceted community in the
South County, residents and visitors use public transportation rather than relying on their cars.
Vision Elements
• Continue successful partnerships with jurisdictions, county, other public agencies,
businesses and schools.
• Provide excellent, reliable, sustainable seamless service that is effective in getting
residents and visitors where they want to travel.
• Secure reliable funding.
• Implement an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program to improve service
quality and provide efficiencies.
• Develop a well-executed image-building campaign with a single face for public
transportation.
MISSION
The Mission of RTA is to provide safe, reliable and efficient transportation services that improve
and enhance the quality of life for the citizens and visitors of San Luis Obispo County.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION
• Stabilize and grow funding.
• Continue to improve service quality: On-time performance, scheduling and routing,
customer amenities on our vehicles and at our bus stops, operating procedures.
• Consolidate and streamline operations to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public
transportation throughout the county.
• Include public transportation as part of the lifestyle evolution needed to confront climate
change.
• Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled.
• Embrace technological improvements that will positively impact efficiency and quality of
service.
86
B-1-2
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY VALUES
Commitment to Serve
Provide valuable services to the public and direct our energies in strengthening our
relationships with our customers and the community while maintaining responsible
ethical fiscal management.
Leadership
Be trustworthy, credible, confident, progressive and influential in all we do.
Teamwork
Working together with trust, support and mutual cooperation and respect. Provide an
environment that fosters frank and open communication. Have Fun in our daily activities
and keep issues in perspective. Have pride in our accomplishments while taking on our
challenges with spirit and vigor.
Integrity
Promote honesty, loyalty, dignity, respect, decency, fairness, courtesy, responsibility, and
character.
Human Development
Provide the appropriate resources and environment for employees to be
successful, motivate individuals to take initiative and to be creative in all of our
efforts.
87
B-1-3
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: B-1
TOPIC: Fiscal Year 2013 Operating and Capital
Program
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt FY13 Budget as presented
RTAC RECOMMENDATION: Presented April 18, 2012
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
I am pleased to present the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Operating and Capital Program.
The operating budget is proposed at $7,019,152 and the capital budget at $4,116,257.
The budget is balanced. There are several significant assumptions herein based upon
the latest information that we have obtained from SLOCOG on the Local Transit Fund
(LTF) and the State Transit Assistance program.
We appreciate the Board’s support and leadership in these difficult financial times, and
we are proud that we have not reduced service levels as a result thereof. The FY13
budget assumes the same core levels of service miles and hours for fixed route,
Runabout, Dial-a-Ride and Trolley service. It also assumes that we will implement some
of the service improvements that have been planned, including additional express trips
on Routes 9 and 10 and an additional round trip on Saturdays system-wide. We will also
adjust service in Los Osos to provide more consistent connections between Morro Bay
and Los Osos, and only peak period commuter focused service along Los Osos Valley
Road towards South San Luis Obispo will be operated. The Route 14 service will
continue during peak commute times between San Luis Obispo and the Cuesta College
campus, our highest trip generators in the regional system. The North Coast Connector
service remains in the schedule and we will be reviewing demand for this JARC-funded
extra weekday service later in the budget year. Staff will also continue to evaluate
recommendations and monitor our Route Productivity Report to develop service
adjustments that we would bring back to your Board for review.
In summary, RTA staff has done a tremendous job of holding the line on expenses. The
major increases in this year’s operating budget are costs for insurance, fuel, the wage
adjustments programmed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for covered
employees, maintenance parts and supplies for the aging fleet, and our health plan.
Although we have managed to make slow progress on upgrading our fleet, we will
continue to see incremental increases to our maintenance costs as a result of the age of
the fleet, as we have five full-size buses that are operated in daily revenue service that
88
B-1-4
are over 14 years old; in addition, our fleet also includes eleven buses that have
surpassed 500,000 miles of service. The delivery of seven new forty-foot low-floor
buses and five paratransit low-floor minivans late in the fiscal year will benefit the FY14
financial results, but likely will not arrive in time to make an impact on costs during
FY13.
The budget packet contains the following items:
• Adopted Budget Assumptions
• Definitions
• Fiscal Year 2012-13 Operating Budget
• Fiscal Year 2012-13 Capital Budget
Lastly, in prior budget years, we have provided your Board with data for a contingency
plan for adjusting service levels should one of our major revenue projections fall short.
We are not including that information at this point in time because funding appears to be
relatively stable in comparison to previous fiscal years.
Revised Revenue Assumptions
We are predicating the revenue stream for the FY13 budget based upon the latest
information that we have available on LTF and STA funding for the region. The STA
program should provide some stability in revenue stream this year and in the coming
years. Staff concurs and applauds the principals laid out in the SLOCOG staff report
that any future funding formulas include incentive funding for Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) and regional integration of the jurisdictional operations with the regional system
as part of the regional funding formula. This budget also assumes a $4 increase in the
base price of a 31-day passes, and $2 for discounted 31-day passes.
Administration and Operations Expenses
Overall Administration Expense is up just over 4% compared to last fiscal year. This is
reflective in workers compensation insurance as a result of RTA implementing policies
and procedures related to safety programs. There is a significant increase in our
professional and Technical Services line item. This large increase is a result of
anticipated litigation expenses for an ongoing lawsuit, as well as incremental increases
in the cost of HR and legal services contracts with the County.
Under the Runabout section of this report, we discuss the change in ridership and the
number of Runabout ADA applications that we receive as a result of the popularity of
our service and other factors related to this increase. The amount of staff time that is
dedicated to processing applications and the review/approval of these has changed
dramatically over the last two years. Although we are not recommending any new
administrative positions in this budget, we will continue to closely monitor the staff time
dedicated to this and may at some point during the fiscal year return to this issue and
recommend a part-time staff person to assist in processing applications and assist with
the overall administrative function for Runabout.
89
B-1-5
On the operating side, we have programmed slightly greater fixed route service hours to
address overcrowding, as well as additional hours for an additional round trip on
Saturdays. The service delivery line item is fairly consistent with that identified in our
current budget, as we are reallocating the majority of these hours and miles in this
year’s budget so the comparative increase is negligible.
Based on funding constraints in previous years, staff has not received a COLA for the
past three years, despite significant and complex challenges that have faced our
organization. As included in the budget assumptions that your Board accepted in
February 2012, staff has included a COLA increase slated for January 2013. We will
closely monitor funding and will bring the COLA increase to your Board in September
2012 for implementation during the second half of the fiscal year. Staff has also
included annual merit-based pay increases for eligible staff members. It is anticipated
that those would be implemented in July 2012.
Ridership Gains, Overcrowding Mitigation
This past year we saw steady ridership increases on all RTA services, and especially on
our fixed route service. Fixed route ridership was up 19% for the first half of FY12. In
response to overwhelming commuter demand, we will be adding additional express trips
in the morning and afternoon peak periods. We have programmed trippers on Route 12
(to/from Cuesta College) in prior years, but this past year we have run extra scheduled
trips during peak times from 8:00 AM through 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM through 4:00 PM
Monday through Friday between the Government Center to Cuesta College via Cal
Poly. We will continue these trips in FY13, with the exception of discontinuing Route 12
service on the Cal Poly campus.
Pursuant to the language in the SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan under Transit
Policies, we have the ability to periodically adjust transit service parameters with the
objective to maximize transit system efficiency, effectiveness and economic feasibility.
Under this section there is a provision to review the need to add trips or tandems when
the peak load factor consistently exceeds 90 percent of a seated bus load. In the case
of all our commute trips on Routes 9, 10 and 12, the load factors consistently range
from 100 – 130% of the seated load.
Runabout Ridership Gains and Runabout Client Census
Pursuant to the monthly ridership reports that you receive, Runabout ridership continues
to grow at an alarming rate. The number of Runabout applications received has also
increased significantly, and we are now receiving an average of 31 applications per
month. In FY10, we received only twelve per week. Our Runabout fleet is currently at
capacity on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Average Runabout ridership year-to-
date is up 4%, and monthly mileage is up 13% over the same period last year. Although
our new scheduling software is providing efficiencies, we will most likely need to
increase Runabout service (vehicles and drivers) during the fiscal year. It should be
noted that federal regulations prohibit a pattern of ADA paratransit trip denials to
certified ADA clients.
90
B-1-6
This increase in our client census is likely related to the reduction in state assistance to
some of the social services programs and clients who at one time either used the
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA, also known as Ride-On) or were
provided transportation through their residential facility. Since Runabout is now
providing many of these trips, we recommend that the county-wide CTSA funding
formula be modified to provide direct funding to Runabout for the trips that will now be
provided by RTA. We suggest that this formula be modified so that Runabout is eligible
for a portion of the 5% before funding is distributed, or that a new funding formula be
developed to include Runabout service in those instances that it can be proven that the
additional ridership that Runabout is handling is directly related to clients who were on
other services before shifting over to Runabout. This program is proposed for FY14, and
staff would suggest that we begin discussion with SLOCOG staff in FY13 to evaluate
the potential of such a program. We feel that this is a fair and equitable solution to this
issue rather than taking additional LTF funding from the jurisdictions. If we find during
these discussions that this is not a viable alternative, we would recommend service
adjustments to offset any increase over our FY13 budget going into FY14.
Capital Program
The focus of our FY13 capital program will be funding the procurement of seven low-
floor forty foot bus ($950,000 from Prop 1B grant and $1,900,000 from FTA State of
Good Repair) and five Runabout vehicles ($224,510). We have also programmed
$20,020 for shop equipment for our maintenance department to improve efficiencies,
$69,000 for an automatic ticket vending machine (RTF funding of $60,000),
miscellaneous computer equipment, and finally budgeted for improvements to our
existing fleet for new camera security systems for six buses ($61,787).
Sustainability of Transit Service
In prior years, we have utilized this section of the budget memo to highlight potential
new funding sources or to discuss efficiencies committees that were established in
2009. Since neither of these items has changed the dynamics in the provision of
transportation over the last three years, we move forward hoping that the upcoming
community survey planned for FY13 will provide insight on the potential for increased
funding for transportation programs in the future. We remain eager to participate in any
efficiency improvement discussions as the Board directs us.
Conclusion and Staff Recommendation
Fiscal Year 2013 will be another challenging year. We look forward to working with your
Board, our stakeholders and our customers in providing the highest quality of
transportation services to our residents and visitors. We believe that this budget reflects
the path set by your Board in previous years and, although we would like to do more,
we believe that this budget provides the optimum levels of service within the confines of
existing resources.
The Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Fiscal Year 2013 budget as presented.
91
B-1-7
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
March 7, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: B-1
TOPIC: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
Assumptions
ACTION: Approve Budget Assumptions
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Budget Assumptions to
enable staff to begin development of
FY13 Operating Budget
RTAC RECOMMENDATION: Presented February 15, 2012
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The following report outlines staff’s budget assumptions recommendation for RTA’s
Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Budget and is the first step in the development of our
operating budget and operating program for next fiscal year. Upon the Board’s
guidance and approval of these assumptions, staff will prepare a detailed report along
with preliminary budget numbers for presentation to the Executive Committee at their
April 11th meeting prior to the final draft budget presentation to the Board in May.
Objectives
• Maintain service levels and hours of service that meet the demand of our
customers and communities through the effective and efficient delivery of RTA
Fixed Route, Runabout, Dial-a-Ride and Trolley services.
• Increase our reserves for the Fiscal Year 2013 budget cycle .
• Continue to work with the efficiencies committee in evaluating region-wide
service efficiencies.
• Evaluate options and provide analysis on the 5-year capital improvement
program and methods to fund these needs.
Revenue
• SLOCOG has projected a relatively large increase in State Transit Assistance
(STA) funding for FY13 . Once those targets are more firmly established, RTA
will assume a proportional increase in overall STA funding in our FY13 budget.
• Fare revenue is projected to be $955,000 (farebox and pass sales revenue only).
We are not recommending a cash fare increase for this fiscal year, although we
are suggesting that the monthly regional and RTA pass prices be increased
slightly. This increase is in line with recommendations made the Short Range
Transit Plan; the last fare increase was August 1, 2010. If the release of funding
92
B-1-8
marks in April-May suggest that other fare changes be instituted, staff will make
that presentation at a future Board meeting.
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307 Operating funding from the City of
Santa Maria for operation of Route 10 will be budgeted at $200,000, which is
consistent with FY12 levels
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307, 5311, 5316, and 5317 operating
funding shall remain consistent with FY12 levels. Should authorizations for
federal transportation programs under SAFETEA-LU increase or decrease for
any of these programs, staff would adjust these assumptions accordingly
• FY12 LTF revenue was budgeted at $3,035,358 (including $2,764,908 for
operations and $270,450 for capital). Should there be a budget shortfall due to
the loss of funding, staff would evaluate and make appropriate recommendation
on a potential TDA fund increase. SLOCOG has projected a 4% to 9% increase
in FY13 LTF levels. Once those targets are further refined, RTA will assume a
proportional increase in overall LTF funding in our FY13 budget.
• Staff will evaluate alternatives to address reserves during the next several
months and report back to the Board prior to the budget process in achieving
both a short term and long term solution to this issue
• Staff will continue to explore new revenue resources at the federal, state, and
local levels
Expenses
• Service levels, number of revenue service hours, miles and span of service for
fixed route and for Runabout will be budgeted at current levels. Should staff be
unable to secure adequate funding to do so, a reduction of service would be
proposed and/or a potential increase in LTF funding would be requested for the
Board’s consideration. Staff will present one alternative budget analysis
considering this bullet
• Detailed miles/hours and span of service for each route and Runabout will be
provided with the draft budget
• Staff will use the Fixed Route Performance Standards, RTA Service
Improvement Program, as well as the findings from the Short Range Transit Plan
to evaluate potential efficiencies and with Board concurrence implement
efficiencies during the course of the fiscal year
• Fuel consumption and price will be budgeted conservatively; diesel fuel will be
budgeted at $4.25 per gallon
• CalTIP liability premiums will be adjusted due to our history this year with an
estimated increase of 15%
• Workers Compensation premiums are projected to increase 28%. Staff will be
working with our broker on this in an effort to obtain a better number prior to April.
We have also established an employee committee that has evaluated workers
comp injuries has initiated a pro-active program to address the number of claims
and severity of the claims that we have had during the last year
• The number of budgeted positions will remain consistent with FY12 levels.
However should revenue projections in April indicate that FY13 revenue is down,
93
B-1-9
there will be a requisite reduction in the number of FTE’s based upon projected
revenue
• PERS and Blue Cross health insurance is projected to increase 10% and 15%
respectively
• Based on the current projected funding there will be no Cost of Living (COLA)
budgeted. Should adequate state, local or federal resources become available in
FY13, the staff would be eligible for a COLA at the end of the fiscal year. Staff
did not receive a COLA increase the last three fiscal years. Employees within
the salary range for their position will be eligible for a step performance merit
increase
• RTA will work with SLOCOG staff and members of the Regional Efficiencies
Committees to evaluate efficiencies in the provision of service throughout the
county
Proposed Budget Calendar
February 8 Detailed budget assumptions and revenue forecast to Executive
Committee
March 7 Obtain Board concurrence on proposed draft budget assumptions
March 7 Provide mid-year FY12 Budget data to Board with any recommended
budget amendment
March 31 Based on feedback from Executive Committee draft FY13 Budget Draft
complete
April 11 Draft FY13 Budget presentation to Executive Committee
April 18 Formal FY13 Budget presentation to RTAC
May 2 Final Board Budget presentation. Board adoption of FY13 Budget
Staff Recommendation
Approve the budget assumptions and budget calendar so that a detailed work plan and
budget may be developed.
94
B-1-10
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET BACKUP
BUDGET DOCUMENT DEFINITIONS
Staff has highlighted the first page of the document into sections, so that each section
can be explained in relation to the total budget. The paragraph numbers below relate to
the bold numbers in squares on the “Proposed Operating Budget For 2012/2013”
of the budget sheets.
1. BEGINNING FUND BALANCE – This amount includes carryover funds and
general reserves. This amount represents fund balance available (estimated)
plus projected revenues for the fiscal year, less projected expenses for the fiscal
year. The resulting amount is the projected fund balance, which will be available
at the start of each fiscal year.
2. LESS REQUIRED RESERVES – These amounts are deducted from the previous
section. First Quarter cash flow requirements represent reserves to maintain
uninterrupted operations. The funding to operate RTA comes from quarterly
disbursements of TDA funds. Quarterly disbursements are not made until the end
of each quarter. Therefore, RTA budgets for the first quarter each year out of the
beginning fund balance. (Please note that the prior year cash flow reserve is
included in the beginning fund balance, and is not accumulated from year to
year.) Capital projects carryover and reserves represent the local match for
carryover and future capital projects as outlined in the capital improvement plan.
3. FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE – This is the balance of funds actually available to
finance the start of the budget year. (Amount represents the difference between
beginning fund balance and required reserves.)
4. NON-TDA SOURCES OF FUNDS – This section details all the Non-
Transportation Development Act (TDA) sources of funding by type. Included are
fares, interest on deposited funds, and federal, state and local sources.
5. TOTAL FUND BALANCE AND NON-TDA FUNDING – This is the total of funding
that comes from sources other than cities and the county. This also includes the
fund balance available described in #3 above. These amounts are used to fund
the budget, thereby decreasing the required TDA contributions of the member
jurisdictions.
6. NET TDA REQUIRED – This is the total amount of local transportation funds
(LTF) required to balance the budget. The Joint Powers Agreement, signed by all
members of RTA, authorizes SLOCOG to allocate this amount from each city
and the county. This source of funds provides transit planning, bicycle programs,
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) support and RTA. A
population-based formula is used to distribute the amount among the eight JPA
95
B-1-11
members. This formula applies to all RTA services. It is not tied to any one route
or any one type of service. The balance of LTF funds goes to each jurisdiction for
local transit programs, and for streets and roads maintenance projects.
7. TOTAL OF ALL FUNDING SOURCES – This is the total of all funding sources. It
equals the amount of expenditures proposed in the budget.
8. FUNDING USES BY GENERAL CATEGORY – This is a very general breakdown
by business function for administration and provision of service.
9. TOTAL FUNDING USES – Equals the amount of funding requested by RTA and
is detailed in the budget
96
4/25/2012
3:38 PM
2010-2011 2011-2012 2011-2012 2012/2013 2012/2013 2012/2013
ACTUAL ADOPTED ADOPTED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
OPERATING CAPITAL OPERATING CAPITAL SLOCAT
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FUNDING SOURCES:
GENERAL RESERVES 1,274,172 1,264,172 - 1,223,136 - 207,203
CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE 227,969 - 128,479 - 350,266 -
1.ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 1,502,141 1,264,172 128,479 1,223,136 350,266 207,203
2.LESS REQUIRED RESERVES FOR FISCAL YEAR
CASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS PER TDA 897,573 1,197,504 - 1,359,421 - 207,203
CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE 227,969 - 128,479 - 288,479 -
TOTAL 1,125,542 1,197,504 128,479 1,359,421 288,479 207,203
3.FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE 376,600 66,668 - (136,285) 61,787 -
NON TDA SOURCES
FARES 1,055,415 785,000 - 995,000 - 55,320
SCAT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT 72,600 77,500 - 77,500 - -
COUNTY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT 175,000 175,000 - 175,000 - -
COUNTY OPERATIONS 717,290 1,167,764 - - - -
INTEREST 4,282 4,000 - 4,500 - 1,000
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA)670,650 616,305 - 271,061 443,960 118,242
PROPOSITION 1B FUNDING - SAFETY & SECURITY 61,787 - 61,787 - - -
PROPOSITION 1B FUNDING - BUILDING LOAN PAYDOWN - - 191,845 - - -
PROPOSITION 1B FUNDING - BUS REPLACEMENT 400,000 - 400,000 - 1,350,000 -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Administration)25,000 25,000 - 25,000 - -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Operating Funds)377,568 291,000 - 225,120 - -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Capital)- - 134,000 - 174,710 -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Building purchase)- - - - - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307) - San Luis Obispo 527,410 300,000 60,000 340,000 100,800 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5309) - State of Good Repair - - - - 1,985,000 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5311) - Operating - 520,846 - 519,830 - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5311) - Stimulus 91,802 - - - - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5316) - JARC - 419,453 150,150 400,000 - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5317) - New Freedom 117,049 - 118,400 - - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307-North County) - Operating 259,645 275,000 - 799,422 - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307-Santa Maria) - Operating 201,571 204,650 - 278,734 - -
CUESTA CONTRIBUTION ROUTE 12 51,871 51,871 - 61,336 - -
COG UNIFORM TRANSIT GRANT 700,000 - - - - -
COG ALLOCATION FOR SENIOR SHUTTLE - 70,000 - 80,000 - -
SPECIAL EVENTS REVENUE/OTHER 233,907 96,163 - 99,048 - -
4.SUB TOTAL 5,742,847 5,079,552 1,116,182 4,351,550 4,054,470 174,562
5.TOTAL FUND BALANCE & NON TDA FUNDING 6,119,447 5,146,220 1,116,182 4,215,265 4,116,257 174,562
TDA REQUIRED
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 156,256 147,942 14,471 177,456 -
CITY OF ATASCADERO 260,164 242,769 23,746 292,903 -
CITY OF GROVER BEACH 121,254 112,818 11,035 135,343 -
CITY OF MORRO BAY 96,563 87,760 8,584 105,554 -
CITY OF PASO ROBLES 273,988 255,486 24,990 306,801 -
CITY OF PISMO BEACH 79,226 65,644 6,421 78,770 -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 538,609 497,683 48,681 598,269 -
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1,466,214 1,354,805 132,521 1,628,621 709,568
TDA REQUIREMENTS BEFORE 5311 EXCHANGE 2,992,273 2,764,908 270,450 3,323,717 - 709,568
LESS: RURAL TRANSIT FUND/5311 EXCHANGE (568,322) (520,846) - (519,830) - -
6.NET TDA REQUIREMENTS 2,423,951 2,244,062 270,450 2,803,887 - 709,568
7.TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 8,543,398 7,390,281 1,386,632 7,019,152 4,116,257 884,130
8.FUNDING USES:
ADMINISTRATION 1,451,566 1,287,912 - 1,312,406 - 27,350
INTEREST EXPENSE 189,415 225,000 - 168,585 - -
MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS 247,600 252,500 - 77,500 - 175,000
SERVICE DELIVERY 4,645,705 5,524,870 - 5,360,661 - 681,780
CAPITAL 1,367,134 - 1,194,787 - 3,807,995 -
LOAN PAYDOWN 597,948 - 191,845 - 308,262 -
CONTINGENCY 7,082 100,000 - 100,000 - -
9.TOTAL FUNDING USES 8,506,450 7,390,281 1,386,632 7,019,152 4,116,257 884,130
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2012/2013
Population
Based
18%
49%
B-1-12
97
4/25/2012
3:38 PM
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012/2013 2012/2013
ACTUAL ADOPTED PROPOSED PROPOSED
OPERATING OPERATING SLOCAT
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FUNDING SOURCES:
GENERAL RESERVES 1,274,172 1,264,172 1,223,136 205,888
1.ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 1,274,172 1,264,172 1,223,136 205,888
2.LESS REQUIRED RESERVES FOR FISCAL YEAR
CASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS PER TDA 897,573 1,197,504 1,359,421 205,888
TOTAL 897,573 1,197,504 1,359,421 205,888
3.FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE 376,600 66,668 (136,285) -
NON TDA SOURCES
FARES 1,055,415 785,000 995,000 60,580
SCAT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT 72,600 77,500 77,500 -
COUNTY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT 175,000 175,000 175,000 -
COUNTY OPERATIONS 717,290 1,167,764 - -
INTEREST 4,282 4,000 4,500 1,000
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA)164,419 616,305 271,061 -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Administration)25,000 25,000 25,000 -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Operating Funds)377,568 291,000 225,120 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307) - San Luis Obispo 377,410 300,000 340,000 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5311) - Operating - 520,846 519,830 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5316) - JARC - 419,453 400,000 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307-North County) - Operating 259,645 275,000 799,422 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307-Santa Maria) - Operating 201,571 204,650 278,734 -
CUESTA CONTRIBUTION ROUTE 12 51,871 45,368 61,336 -
COG ALLOCATION FOR SENIOR SHUTTLE - 70,000 80,000 -
SPECIAL EVENTS REVENUE/OTHER 233,907 96,163 99,048 -
4.SUB TOTAL 3,715,978 5,073,049 4,351,550 61,580
5.TOTAL FUND BALANCE & NON TDA FUNDING 4,092,578 5,139,717 4,215,265 61,580
TDA REQUIRED
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 156,256 148,290 177,456 -
CITY OF ATASCADERO 260,164 243,340 292,903 -
CITY OF GROVER BEACH 121,254 113,083 135,343 -
CITY OF MORRO BAY 96,563 87,967 105,554 -
CITY OF PASO ROBLES 273,988 256,087 306,801 -
CITY OF PISMO BEACH 79,226 65,799 78,770 -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 538,609 498,854 598,269 -
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1,466,214 1,357,991 1,628,621 709,568
TDA REQUIREMENTS BEFORE 5311 EXCHANGE 2,992,273 2,771,411 3,323,717 709,568
LESS: RURAL TRANSIT FUND/5311 EXCHANGE (568,322) (520,846) (519,830) -
6.NET TDA REQUIREMENTS 2,423,951 2,250,565 2,803,887 709,568
7.TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 6,516,529 7,390,281 7,019,152 771,148
8.FUNDING USES:
ADMINISTRATION 1,451,566 1,287,912 1,312,406 27,350
INTEREST EXPENSE 189,415 225,000 168,585 -
MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS 247,600 252,500 77,500 175,000
SERVICE DELIVERY 4,645,705 5,524,870 5,360,661 681,780
CONTINGENCY 7,082 100,000 100,000 -
9.TOTAL FUNDING USES 6,541,368 7,390,281 7,019,152 884,130
PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR 2012/2013
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Population
Based
18%
49%
B-1-13
98
4/25/2012
3:38 PM
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012/2013 2012/2013
ACTUAL ADOPTED PROPOSED PROPOSED
CAPITAL CAPITAL SLOCAT
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FUNDING SOURCES:
CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE 227,969 128,479 288,479 -
1.ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 1,502,141 128,479 288,479 -
2.LESS REQUIRED RESERVES FOR FISCAL YEAR
CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE 227,969 128,479 288,479 -
TOTAL 227,969 128,479 288,479 -
3.FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE - - - -
NON TDA SOURCES
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA)506,231 - 443,960 -
PROPOSITION 1B FUNDING - SAFETY & SECURITY 61,787 61,787 61,787 -
PROPOSITION 1B FUNDING - BUILDING LOAN PAYDOWN - 191,845 - -
PROPOSITION 1B FUNDING - BUS REPLACEMENT 400,000 400,000 1,350,000 -
RURAL TRANSIT FUND (Capital)- 134,000 174,710 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5307) - San Luis Obispo 150,000 60,000 100,800 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5309) - State of Good Repair - - 1,985,000 -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5311) - Stimulus 91,802 - - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5316) - JARC - 150,150 - -
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADM (FTA) (Section 5317) - New Freedom 117,049 118,400 - -
COG UNIFORM TRANSIT GRANT 700,000 - - -
4.SUB TOTAL 2,026,869 1,116,182 4,116,257 -
5.TOTAL FUND BALANCE & NON TDA FUNDING 2,026,869 1,116,182 4,116,257 -
TDA REQUIRED
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE - 14,471 -
CITY OF ATASCADERO - 23,746 -
CITY OF GROVER BEACH - 11,035 -
CITY OF MORRO BAY - 8,584 -
CITY OF PASO ROBLES - 24,990 -
CITY OF PISMO BEACH - 6,421 -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - 48,681 -
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - 132,521 -
TDA REQUIREMENTS BEFORE 5311 EXCHANGE - 270,450 - -
LESS: RURAL TRANSIT FUND/5311 EXCHANGE - - - -
6.NET TDA REQUIREMENTS - 270,450 - -
7.TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 2,026,869 1,386,632 4,116,257 -
8.FUNDING USES:
CAPITAL 1,367,134 1,194,787 3,807,995 -
LOAN PAYDOWN 597,948 191,845 308,262 -
9.TOTAL FUNDING USES 1,965,082 1,386,632 4,116,257 -
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET FOR 2012/2013
Population
Based
18%
49%
B-1-14
99
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Proposed
Operating Operating
Actual Budget Budget
FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Hours 52,563 59,614 61,187
Miles 1,383,887 1,502,277 1,554,777
Administration:
Labor operations cost 668,587 714,189 736,692
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost 19,719 28,439 33,081
Office Space Rental operations cost 402,018 404,028 401,278
Property Insurance operations cost 9,513 12,650 13,000
Professional Technical Services operations cost 78,137 105,500 127,520
Professional Development operations cost - 10,000 10,000
Operating Expense operations cost 188,690 185,605 190,685
Marketing and Reproduction hourly 30,284 80,000 80,000
County Management Contract operations cost (175,000)(175,000)(175,000)
SCAT Management Contract operations cost (72,600)(77,500)(77,500)
Total Administration 1,149,348 1,287,912 1,339,756
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 2,271,815 2,419,945 2,606,717
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 110,617 159,537 185,537
Labor - Maintenance hourly 564,113 649,954 654,862
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 34,780 50,161 58,336
Fuel miles 1,064,912 1,203,605 1,434,884
Insurance miles 156,821 256,878 276,335
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a 76,132 82,700 79,925
Avila Trolley n/a 48,352 60,000 66,100
Senior Shuttle n/a 72,690 70,000 80,000
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 403,559 421,900 475,461
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 144,132 150,190 124,283
Total Operations 4,947,923 5,524,870 6,042,441
Contingency hourly 7,082 100,000 100,000
Interest Expense operations cost 189,415 225,000 168,585
Management Contracts 247,600 252,500 252,500
TOTAL FUNDING USES 6,541,368 7,390,281 7,903,282
Administration and Service Delivery
B-1-15
100
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Local Proposed
Capital Grant Match Capital
Actual Budget Funding Funding Budget
FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades - 4,700 2,350 2,350 6,678
Miscellaneous Capital - 60,150 43,145 17,005 -
Automatic Ticket Machine - - - 69,000
Transmission Jack - - - - 7,480
Wheel Alignment Tool - - - - 1,430
Opacity Tester - - - - 6,820
Coolant Flush Machine - - - - 4,290
Camera System - 61,787 61,787 - 61,787
Bus Stop Improvements 112,834 - - - -
Bus Rehabilitation - 100,000 - 100,000 100,000
Bus Procurement Reserve - 160,000 88,505 71,495 -
Electronic Farebox/RouteMatch Dispatching Software 192,507 - - - -
Vehicles 1,061,793 - - - -
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)- 185,150 150,150 35,000 -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)- 400,000 400,000 - 3,326,000
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)- 223,000 178,400 44,600 224,510
Total Capital Outlay 1,367,134 1,194,787 924,337 270,450 3,807,995
Loan Paydown 597,948 191,845 191,845 - 308,262
TOTAL FUNDING USES 1,965,082 1,386,632 1,116,182 270,450 4,116,257
Capital Expenditures
B-1-16
101
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 9,855 9,277
Miles 286,021 281,589
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)176,552 - 180,775
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 318,548 355,240
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 22,086 25,285
Labor - Maintenance hourly 85,436 89,244
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 6,944 7,950
Fuel miles 214,899 244,663
Insurance miles 36,541 46,274
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 69,742 77,398
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 24,827 20,231
Total Operations 779,023 - 866,286 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 790 1,030
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 10,113 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 10,645
Transmission Jack hourly - 1,154
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 221
Opacity Tester hourly - 1,052
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 662
Camera System hourly 10,388 15,579
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 27,415 25,214
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 43,865 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 109,662 838,622
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 202,233 - 894,179
Contingency hourly 17,682 - 15,427 -
Interest Expense operations cost 43,765 - 28,242 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 1,017,022 202,233 1,090,730 894,179
Route 9 - Monday through Friday
B-1-17
102
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 512 714
Miles 14,585 20,204
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)9,100 - 13,489
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 16,540 27,336
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 1,147 1,946
Labor - Maintenance hourly 4,436 6,867
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 361 612
Fuel miles 10,958 17,555
Insurance miles 1,897 3,320
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)hourly 3,621 5,553
Maintenance Contract Costs hourly 1,289 1,452
Total Operations 40,249 - 64,640 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 41 79
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 525 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 819
Transmission Jack hourly - 89
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 17
Opacity Tester hourly - 81
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 51
Camera System hourly 539 1,199
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 1,424 1,940
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 2,278 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 5,694 64,531
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 10,501 - 68,807
Contingency hourly 982 - 1,187 -
Interest Expense operations cost 2,414 - 2,107 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 52,744 10,501 81,423 68,807
Route 9 - Saturday
B-1-18
103
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 420 399
Miles 12,165 12,048
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)7,520 - 7,758
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 13,582 15,282
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 942 1,088
Labor - Maintenance hourly 3,643 3,839
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 296 342
Fuel miles 9,140 10,468
Insurance miles 1,558 1,980
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 2,974 3,312
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 1,059 866
Total Operations 33,191 - 37,176 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 34 44
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 431 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 458
Transmission Jack hourly - 50
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 9
Opacity Tester hourly - 45
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 28
Camera System hourly 443 670
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 1,169 1,085
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 1,870 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 4,676 36,076
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 8,622 - 38,466
Contingency hourly - - 664 -
Interest Expense operations cost 2,095 - 1,212 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 42,806 8,622 46,809 38,466
Route 9 - Sunday
B-1-19
104
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 11,298 9,622
Miles 351,247 329,030
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)208,363 - 198,144
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 365,208 368,454
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 25,321 26,225
Labor - Maintenance hourly 97,950 92,563
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 7,961 8,246
Fuel miles 263,906 285,884
Insurance miles 41,894 54,071
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 79,958 90,438
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 28,464 23,640
Total Operations 910,662 - 949,520 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 906 1,069
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 11,594 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 11,041
Transmission Jack hourly - 1,197
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 229
Opacity Tester hourly - 1,091
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 686
Camera System hourly 11,910 16,159
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 31,431 26,152
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 50,290 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 125,725 869,816
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 231,856 - 927,440
Contingency hourly 20,449 - 16,001 -
Interest Expense operations cost 51,829 - 30,956 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 1,191,303 231,856 1,194,621 927,440
Route 10 - Monday through Friday
B-1-20
105
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 530 666
Miles 16,524 19,284
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)9,791 - 12,711
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 17,145 25,507
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 1,189 1,816
Labor - Maintenance hourly 4,598 6,408
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 374 571
Fuel miles 12,415 16,755
Insurance miles 1,967 3,169
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 3,754 5,300
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 1,336 1,386
Total Operations 42,777 - 60,912 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 43 74
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 544 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 764
Transmission Jack hourly - 83
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 16
Opacity Tester hourly - 76
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 48
Camera System hourly 559 1,119
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 1,476 1,810
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 2,361 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 5,902 60,216
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 10,885 - 64,205
Contingency hourly 1,017 - 1,108 -
Interest Expense operations cost 2,575 - 1,986 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 56,161 10,885 76,717 64,205
Route 10 - Saturday
B-1-21
106
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 421 364
Miles 13,137 11,376
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)7,778 - 7,186 -
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 13,615 13,933
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 944 992
Labor - Maintenance hourly 3,652 3,500
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 297 312
Fuel miles 9,870 9,884
Insurance miles 1,562 1,869
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 2,981 3,127
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 1,061 817
Total Operations 33,982 - 34,434 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 34 40
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 432 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 417
Transmission Jack hourly - 45
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 9
Opacity Tester hourly - 41
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 26
Camera System hourly 444 611
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 1,172 989
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 1,875 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 4,687 32,891
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 8,644 - 35,070
Contingency hourly - - 605 -
Interest Expense operations cost 2,152 - 1,123 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 43,912 8,644 43,348 35,070
Route 10 - Sunday
B-1-22
107
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 11,533 13,321
Miles 311,228 294,765
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)200,631 - 228,019 -
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 372,811 510,073
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 25,848 36,305
Labor - Maintenance hourly 99,990 128,141
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 8,127 11,415
Fuel miles 233,838 256,111
Insurance miles 42,766 48,440
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 81,622 81,019
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 29,056 21,178
Total Operations 894,058 - 1,092,683 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 925 1,479
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 11,835 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 15,284
Transmission Jack hourly - 1,657
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 317
Opacity Tester hourly - 1,511
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 950
Camera System hourly 12,157 22,369
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 32,086 36,204
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 51,337 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly 185,150 -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 128,342 1,204,139
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 421,833 - 1,283,911
Contingency hourly 16,968 - 22,151 -
Interest Expense operations cost 40,500 - 35,623 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 1,152,158 421,833 1,378,476 1,283,911
Route 11-15 - Monday through Friday
B-1-23
108
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 768 1,371
Miles 25,398 30,540
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)14,546 - 23,521 -
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 24,810 52,479
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 1,720 3,735
Labor - Maintenance hourly 6,654 13,184
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 541 1,174
Fuel miles 19,083 26,535
Insurance miles 2,846 5,019
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 5,432 8,394
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 1,934 2,194
Total Operations 63,020 - 112,715 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 62 152
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 788 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 1,573
Transmission Jack hourly - 170
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 33
Opacity Tester hourly - 155
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 98
Camera System hourly 809 2,301
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 2,135 3,725
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 3,416 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 8,541 123,889
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 15,751 - 132,096
Contingency hourly 1,472 - 2,279 -
Interest Expense operations cost 3,805 - 3,675 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 82,843 15,751 142,190 132,096
Route 15 - Saturday
B-1-24
109
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 608 1,060
Miles 20,002 25,315
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)11,497 - 18,680 -
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 19,667 40,589
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 1,364 2,889
Labor - Maintenance hourly 5,275 10,197
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 429 908
Fuel miles 15,028 21,995
Insurance miles 2,256 4,160
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 4,306 6,958
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 1,533 1,819
Total Operations 49,857 - 89,515 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 49 118
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 624 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 1,216
Transmission Jack hourly - 132
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 25
Opacity Tester hourly - 120
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 76
Camera System hourly 641 1,780
Bus Rehabilitation hourly 1,693 2,881
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly 2,708 -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly 6,770 95,819
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly - -
Total Capital Outlay - 12,485 - 102,167
Contingency hourly - - 1,763 -
Interest Expense operations cost 3,164 - 2,918 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 64,518 12,485 112,876 102,167
Route 15 - Sunday
B-1-25
110
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 22,669 23,341
Miles 427,220 479,229
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)347,303 - 388,814 -
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 732,784 893,779
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 50,806 63,616
Labor - Maintenance hourly 196,536 224,536
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 15,974 20,002
Fuel miles 320,987 416,387
Insurance miles 84,059 78,753
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 160,434 131,722
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 57,112 34,431
Total Operations 1,618,692 - 1,863,225 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly 1,818 2,592
Miscellaneous Capital hourly 23,263 -
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly - 26,782
Transmission Jack hourly - 2,903
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly - 555
Opacity Tester hourly - 2,647
Coolant Flush Machine hourly - 1,665
Camera System hourly 23,896 -
Bus Rehabilitation hourly - -
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly - -
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly - -
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly - -
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly 223,000 224,510
Total Capital Outlay - 271,977 - 261,655
Contingency hourly 41,430 - 38,815 -
Interest Expense operations cost 72,701 - 60,744 -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 2,080,126 271,977 2,351,598 261,655
Runabout
B-1-26
111
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Projected Projected Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Hours 1,000 1,052
Miles 24,750 51,397
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)40,582 - 42,794 -
Service Delivery:
Labor - Operations hourly 32,325 40,266
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 2,241 2,866
Labor - Maintenance hourly 8,670 10,116
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 705 901
Fuel miles 18,596 44,657
Insurance miles 3,708 8,446
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a - -
Avila Trolley n/a - -
Senior Shuttle n/a 70,000 80,000
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 7,077 14,127
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 2,519 3,693
Total Operations 145,841 - 205,072 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly
Miscellaneous Capital hourly
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly
Transmission Jack hourly
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly
Opacity Tester hourly
Coolant Flush Machine hourly
Camera System hourly
Bus Rehabilitation hourly
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly
Total Capital Outlay - - - -
Contingency hourly - - - -
Interest Expense operations cost - - - -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 186,423 - 247,866 -
Special Events
B-1-27
112
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Adopted Adopted Projected Projected
Operating Capital Operating Capital
Budget Budget Budget Budget
FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13
Administration:
Labor operations cost
Labor - Administration Workers Comp operations cost
Office Space Rental operations cost
Property Insurance operations cost
Professional Technical Services operations cost
Professional Development operations cost
Operating Expense operations cost
Marketing and Reproduction operations cost
County Management Contract operations cost
SCAT Management Contract operations cost
Total Administration (Net of Contracts)288,329 217,866
Operations:
Labor - Operations hourly 393,320 263,780
Labor - Operations Workers Comp hourly 25,930 18,775
Labor - Maintenance hourly 105,639 66,267
Labor - Maintenance Workers Comp hourly 8,153 5,903
Fuel miles 74,885 83,990
Insurance miles 35,825 20,834
Special Transportation (includes Senior Vans, Lucky Bucks, etc)n/a 82,700 79,925
Avila Trolley n/a 60,000 66,100
Senior Shuttle n/a - -
Maintenance (parts, supplies, materials)miles 68,573 48,113
Maintenance Contract Costs miles 24,411 12,577
Total Operations 879,435 - 666,264 -
Capital/Studies:
Computer System Maintenance/Upgrades hourly
Miscellaneous Capital hourly
Automatic Ticket Machine hourly
Transmission Jack hourly
Wheel Alignment Tool hourly
Opacity Tester hourly
Coolant Flush Machine hourly
Camera System hourly
Bus Stop Improvements hourly
Bus Rehabilitation hourly
Bus Procurement Reserve hourly
Electronic Farebox/RouteMatch Dispatching Software hourly
Vehicles hourly
North Coast Connector (Two Small Buses)hourly
Seven 40' Coaches (One 40' Coach)hourly
Five Low Floor Runabout Vans (Three Runabout Vehicles)hourly
Total Capital Outlay - - - -
Contingency hourly - - - -
Interest Expense operations cost - - - -
TOTAL FUNDING USES 1,167,764 - 884,130 -
County Services
B-1-28
113
B-2-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: B-2
TOPIC: RTA Charter Services Policy and Procedures
ACTION: Review and Approve
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
Executive Director
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Policy and Procedures document, which
permit RTA to operate regionally significant
special services that comply with the FTA Charter
Services; Final Rule requirements.
RTAC RECOMMENDATION: Presented as part of the RTAC Executive Director
Report on April 18, 2012
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On January 14, 2008, the Federal Transit Administration published the Charter Service;
Final Rule (Final Rule) document in the Federal Register, which became effective on
April 30, 2008. The purpose of the Final Rule is to protect private charter operators from
unauthorized competition from recipients of Federal financial assistance under Federal
Transit Laws. RTA staff developed the attached proposed charter services policy and
procedures to comply with the Final Rule, and to direct actions that staff must take to
ensure compliance.
RTA is proposing to operate charter services based on two types of exceptions that are
permitted under the Final Rule, as follows:
1. Government officials on official government business – Up to 80 hours of charter
service annually can be provided. An example would be transporting the
Planning Commission to a site as part of a field visit/review.
2. Regionally-significant services in the public interest – Unlike the government
officials exception presented above, these types of services require waivers from
the FTA Administrator.
Under the exception presented under number two above, the RTA Board would
annually consider those events that are regionally significant and in the public’s interest,
and then RTA staff would petition the FTA Administrator for each individual event. Any
requests received outside the annual consideration process would be presented at the
next scheduled RTA Board meeting. RTA staff would reach out to private charter
114
B-2-2
operators in the region to determine if any partnering opportunities exist, and provide
that information as part of the petition process.
RTA staff will present a draft list of proposed regionally significant charter service events
at the July 2012 Board meeting. A copy of the draft list will be provided to charter
operators that serve San Luis Obispo county (those companies must have registered on
the FTA Charter website), along with an invitation to provide input on the draft list. RTA
staff will also present a recommended hourly rate and a corresponding per mile rate for
FY13. For subsequent fiscal years, the proposed list and hourly and per mile rates
would be presented at the same time that the annual budget package is presented.
115
B-2-3
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR CHARTER SERVICES
May 2012
ARTICLE I, PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to establish the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(RTA) policy and procedures governing the operation of charter bus service incidental to normal
public transit services. Specifically, the purpose of this policy is to implement 49 U.S.C. 5323(d),
which protects private charter operators from unauthorized competition from recipients of
Federal financial assistance under Federal Transit Laws.
ARTICLE II, BACKGROUND
The RTA is the intercity fixed route and demand response public transit service provider in San
Luis Obispo County. RTA is a qualified Federal Transit Administration grantee, and works
closely with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to plan for Federally-funded public
transit services in the region. RTA’s role as a public agency is to treat all citizens, groups, and
political jurisdictions equally. Consequently, pricing of all charter services must be determined
on a uniform basis. Additionally, RTA must certify compliance with Federal charter service
regulations as part of its annual Certifications and Assurances to the FTA.
RTA is governed by its 12-member Board of Directors, comprised of the five San Luis Obispo
County Supervisors and the mayors of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay,
Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo. The Board is charged with budget-making and
policy development responsibilities.
ARTICLE III, DEFINITIONS
1. ‘‘Federal Transit Laws’’ means 49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq., and includes 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4),
142(a), and 142(c), when used to provide assistance to public transit agencies for
purchasing buses and vans.
2. “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration or his or
her designee.
3. ‘‘Charter service’’ means:
a. Transportation provided by an FTA grantee at the request of a third party for the
exclusive use of a bus or van for a negotiated price. The following features may
be characteristic of charter service:
i. A third party pays the transit provider a negotiated price for the group;
116
B-2-4
ii. Any fares charged to individual members of the group are retained by a
third party;
iii. The service is not part of the public transit provider’s regularly scheduled
service, or is offered for a limited period of time; or
iv. A third party determines the origin and destination of the trip as well as
scheduling; or
b. Transportation provided by an FTA grantee to the public for events or functions
that occur on an irregular basis or for a limited duration and:
i. A premium fare is charged that is greater than the usual or customary
fixed route fare; or
ii. The service is paid for in whole or in part by a third party.
4. ‘‘Charter service hours’’ means total hours operated by buses or vans while in charter
service including:
a. Hours operated while carrying passengers for hire, plus
b. Associated deadhead hours.
5. ‘‘Charter service miles” means total miles operated by buses or vans while in charter
service including:
a. Miles operated while carrying passengers for hire, plus
b. Associated deadhead miles.
6. ‘‘Exclusive’’ means service that a reasonable person would conclude is intended to
exclude members of the public.
7. ‘‘Registered charter provider’’ means a private charter operator that has registered on
FTA’s charter registration Web site to provide charter service in the RTA service area.
8. ‘‘Registration list’’ means the current list of registered charter providers and qualified
human service organizations maintained on FTA’s charter registration Web site.
117
B-2-5
ARTICLE IV, EXCEPTIONS
The purpose of this subpart is to identify the limited exceptions under which RTA may provide
community-based charter services. Although the FTA identifies a total of six possible
exceptions, RTA will only consider two exceptions that are applicable to its operating
environment:
1. Government officials on official government business:
a. RTA may provide charter service to government officials (Federal, State, and
local) for official government business, which can include non-transit related
purposes, if RTA:
i. Provides the service in its geographic service area;
ii. Does not generate revenue from the charter service, except as required by
law; and
iii. After providing such service, records the following:
1. The government organization’s name, address, phone number, and
email address;
2. The date and time of service;
3. The number of passengers (specifically noting the number of
government officials on the trip);
4. The origin, destination, and trip length (miles and hours);
5. The fee collected, if any; and
6. The vehicle number for the vehicle(s) used to provide the service.
b. An FTA grantee that provides charter service under this section shall be limited
annually to 80 charter service hours for providing trips to government officials for
official government business.
2. Petitions to the FTA Administrator:
a. RTA may petition the FTA Administrator for an exception to the charter service
regulations to provide charter service directly to a customer for:
i. Events of a regional or national significance; and
ii. Unique and time sensitive events (i.e., funerals of local, regional or
national significance) that are in the public’s interest.
118
B-2-6
b. The petition to the Administrator shall include the following information:
i. The date and description of the event;
ii. The type of service requested and the type of equipment;
iii. The anticipated number of charter service hours needed for the event;
iv. The anticipated number of vehicles and duration of the event; and
1. For an event of regional or national significance, the RTA’s
petition shall include a description of how registered charter
providers were consulted, how registered charter providers will be
utilized in providing the charter service, a certification that the
grantee has exhausted all of the vehicles of the registered charter
providers in its geographic service area, and submit the petition at
least 90 days before the first day of the event described in section
(b)(i) above.
2. For unique and time sensitive events, the petition shall describe
why the event is unique or time sensitive and how providing the
charter service would be in the public’s interest.
c. Upon receipt of RTA’s petition that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Administrator shall review the materials and issue a written
decision denying or granting the request in whole or part. In making this decision,
the Administrator may seek such additional information as the Administrator
deems necessary. The Administrator’s decision shall be filed in the “Petitions to
the Administrator” docket, number FTA-2007-002 at http://www.regulations.gov
and sent to RTA via email.
d. Any exception granted by the Administrator under this section shall be effective
only for the event identified in paragraph (b)(i) of this section.
e. RTA shall send its petition to the Administrator by email to
ombudsman.charterservice@dot.gov.
f. RTA shall retain a copy of the Administrator’s approval for a period of at least
three years and shall include it in RTA’s quarterly report posted on the charter
registration Web site.
ARTICLE V, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1. Reporting requirements for all exceptions:
a. Whenever RTA provides charter service in accordance with one or more of the
exceptions contained in the “Exceptions” section above, RTA shall maintain the
119
B-2-7
required notice and records in an electronic format for a period of at least three
years from the date of the service or lease.
b. After providing the charter service, RTA shall record:
i. The chartering group’s name, address, phone number, and email address;
ii. The date and time of service;
iii. The number of passengers;
iv. The origin, destination, and trip length (miles and hours);
v. The fee collected, if any; and
vi. The vehicle number for the vehicle used to provide the service.
c. In addition to the requirements identified in paragraph (a) of this section, the
records required under this subpart shall include a clear statement identifying
which exception RTA relied upon when it provided the charter service.
d. RTA shall submit a summary of charter services on the FTA charter registration
Web site within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter (i.e., January 30th,
April 30th, July 30th, and October 30th).
2. How RTA will respond to requests for charter service:
a. Upon receiving a request for charter service, RTA may:
i. Decline to provide the service; or
ii. Provide the service under an exception presented in the “Exceptions”
section above.
b. If RTA is interested in providing charter service under either the “Government
officials on official government business” section or the “Petitions to the
Administrator” section contained in the “Exceptions” paragraph above, then RTA
staff will present details of the proposed service(s) at the next Board Executive
Committee meeting to seek a recommendation to consider the item at a
subsequent full Board of Directors meeting. Upon Board resolution, RTA may:
i. Provide the service if it qualifies under the “Government officials on
official government business” exception.
ii. Petition the Administrator if the proposed service qualifies under the
special event exception.
It is anticipated that an annual calendar of proposed charters that qualify as events
of a regional significance will be presented to the RTA Board of Directors for
consideration, and that the RTA Executive Director will subsequently submit the
petitions.
120
B-2-8
ARTICLE VI, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Geographical Charter Service Area: RTA will offer incidental charter services with an
origin within 0.75 miles of existing public fixed route service in San Luis Obispo County
and/or any planned fixed routes that are expressly identified RTA’s adopted annual
budget; the trip destination must be within 10 miles of an existing fixed route.
2. Charter Vehicle Capacity: Each vehicle’s passenger capacity is limited to its number of
seats, including authorized wheelchair positions. Baggage or other property must be
carried onto the vehicle by the passenger, and will be limited as to the quantity, weight,
and/or size that can be safely transported. Any article that creates, in the opinion of the
bus operator or other RTA supervisor, a hazardous condition or that is likely to damage
the vehicle will not be transported.
3. Safety Concerns on Charter Service Operations: In the interest of safety, RTA reserves
the right to refuse to operate charter service when environmental conditions dictate,
including inaccessible destination sites, inclement weather, etc. Wherever practical, RTA
will cooperate with the requesting party in revising the route in order to successfully
provide the charter service.
4. Charter Service Schedule: RTA endeavors to maintain a mutually-agreed upon schedule
but cannot guarantee arrival or departure times due to accidents, breakdowns, road
conditions, inclement weather, and/or other circumstances beyond its control. RTA
assigns qualified bus operators that have been instructed to drive at speed limits
prescribed by law or that are required to operate safely. RTA shall not be held responsible
for personal property that is left on its vehicles.
5. Charter Employee / Bus Assignments: RTA reserves the right to assign employees to a
specific job, and to substitute or replace employees without notice. Wherever possible,
requests for specific bus operators will be honored.
6. Charter Vehicle Breakdowns: Vehicles furnished by RTA are inspected by maintenance
staff before being put into charter service to ensure safe operation. Should mechanical
failure require the replacement of a vehicle originally assigned, the replacement vehicle
may be of a different type; every effort will be made to provide a similar vehicle. The
requesting party will not be charged for time delays or additional miles traveled
specifically related to replacing the faulty vehicle, or for any other delays that were the
direct fault of RTA.
7. Dealing with Objectionable Passengers on Charter Services: RTA reserves the right to
refuse to transport a person:
a. Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and/or
b. Whose conduct is such, or likely to become such, as to make him/her
objectionable to other persons.
121
B-2-9
Persons who conduct themselves in an objectionable manner will be reported to law
enforcement officials.
8. Limited Availability of Charter Services in Peak Periods: For the purpose of this Policy
and Procedures, peak periods are defined as Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to
8:00 PM. RTA reserves the right to operate limited charter bus service, where
appropriate, during peak periods where regularly scheduled services will not be adversely
affected.
9. Charter Vehicle Service Hours and Miles: The requesting party will be charged according
to the vehicle service hours and miles operated; a minimum of two vehicle service hours
will be charged for each chartered vehicle. The following definitions will be used:
a. A vehicle service hour is defined as that incremental amount of time (expressed in
quarters of an hour) that each chartered vehicle is in service, from the time that
the vehicle departs from the dispatched point on its way to the party’s requested
location until the time it returns to the RTA garage or point where the vehicle
engages in another service. Vehicle service hours include idle time and deadhead
time, as well as vehicle safety check-out time (30 minutes) and check-in time (15
minutes).
b. A vehicle service mile is defined as the incremental miles traveled that each
chartered vehicle is in service, from the vehicle departure point at the dispatched
point on its way to the party’s requested location until the miles accumulated in
reaching the RTA garage or point where the vehicle engages in another service.
All charter vehicle service hours and miles will be deducted from the “useful life” of
each vehicle used as defined by the FTA.
10. Charter Rates: Rates will be determined annually as part of the RTA budget-making
process or as amended by the RTA Board.
11. Damage to Vehicles on Charter Services: All expenses related to repairing damage to
vehicles resulting from acts of the contracting party or its users shall be charged to the
contracting party, and will be payable upon presentation of invoice (or retention of
deposit, as appropriate). Damage repairs completed by RTA staff will be billed at $75.00
per hour, in addition to any parts and associated materials. Repairs completed by outside
vendors will be charged at the full invoice cost, plus 5 percent for overhead charges. If
the vehicle is rendered inoperable, the chartering party will be charged $100.00 per day
that the vehicle is not available for regular RTA service. Finally, damage includes the
cleaning of biohazard waste material (i.e., vomit or urine), which will be charged at a rate
of $100 per incident.
12. Payments for Charter Service: All customers booking charter service with RTA must
pay-in-full for service on a cash basis. Payment in full must by made within 30 calendar
days from the receipt of the invoice. A deposit may also be required.
122
B-2-10
13. Cancellations of Charter Service: Any party seeking to cancel scheduled charter services
must do so at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled charter start time. If not canceled
according to this requirement, the party will be charged 25 percent of the original
estimated costs for the service or two vehicle service hours per bus requested (whichever
is less).
123
B-3-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2 , 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: B-3
TOPIC: Funding Agreement to Reinstitute Cambria
Trolley
ACTION: Authorize staff to execute a two-year
agreement with the BID to partially fund the
Cambria Trolley
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to negotiate and execute
operating agreement with North Coast BID.
RTAC RECOMMENDATION: Presented April 18, 2012.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
RTA previously operated Cambria Trolley service for several years, but that service was
eliminated after local farebox replacement funding support was pulled, and the ensuing
farebox cash revenues were insufficient to meet TDA requirements could not be met.
RTA staff was approached by the Cambria Chamber of Commerce in March 2012 to
discuss the possibility of re-implementing the Cambria Trolley. Staff met with local
officials, including members of the Tourism Business Improvement District (BID)
representing the North Coast, the Cambria Tourism Board, and Cambria Chamber of
Commerce staff. RTA staff proposed that Route 15 service could be reduced slightly on
Sundays year-round in exchange for partial funding to operate the Cambria Trolley from
Memorial Day through Labor Day on four days per week from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
Local officials agreed to provide 10% of the annual operating cost (10% of $40,000
equates to $4,000 annually) for a two-year period, as well as to provide start-up costs
and promotion efforts. The County’s annual contribution to this service would be
$36,000, although it would be mostly offset by the reduction in Route 15 service on
Sundays.
Staff is requesting authority for the RTA Executive Director to complete final
negotiations and execute an agreement with the BID to provide this service.
124
B-4-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2 , 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: B-4
TOPIC: Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Price Increase
for 31-Day Passes
ACTION: Authorize staff to incorporate a fare
increase into FY12 Operating Program
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to raise fare on the RTA and
Regional 31-Day passes
RTAC RECOMMENDATION: Presented April 18, 2012.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In the Budget Assumptions presented to the Board at the February 3 RTA Board
meeting, RTA staff proposed a pass price increase for 31-day passes to offset the loss
of state and federal funding, to address increased operating costs, and to raise our
farebox recovery ratio.
The last RTA fare increase was implemented in 2010, and the one prior to that was in
2008. During the 2010 fare increase public outreach effort, we received very little
opposition to the fixed route multi-ride fare media changes (formerly, RTA sold monthly
passes; we transitioned to 31-day rolling passes at that time).
The current pass price increase is being recommended as a result of increasing fuel,
medical benefits, vehicle insurance and other operating costs that increased over time.
Based on pass sale trends and fare elasticity analyses, staff estimates that the
proposed increase will generate an additional $37,000 to $44,000 in farebox revenues
in FY13.
Pursuant to our Fare Policy, RTA staff conducted public workshops in early April around
the county to obtain feedback on the proposed pass price increase. Staff included this
information along with any adjustments on the proposed increase based on the
feedback received, as well as input from the RTAC at its April 18 meeting.
It is recommended that the proposed pass price increase be implemented on June 10,
2012 as part of the proposed service revisions.
125
B-5-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: B-5
TOPIC: San Luis Obispo County Contract for Direct
Operation, Management, Administration, and
Transit Vehicle Servicing
ACTION: Review and Approve
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
Executive Director
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the new contract for direct operation,
management, administration, and transit vehicle
servicing between the County of San Luis Obispo
and RTA.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In June 2007, RTA and San Luis Obispo County entered into an updated agreement for
RTA to administer all county-funded transit services in the unincorporated areas of the
county, including Cambria, Shandon, Templeton, Los Osos / Baywood Park, and
Nipomo. Specifically, RTA has provided service design, grant writing, procurement,
marketing, reporting, contracted and/or directly-operated services, vehicle maintenance
and all required management reporting. TDA and other funding for the county’s transit
services was passed-through from the county to RTA.
Attached is a revised agreement to become effective July 1, 2012 that assumes full
operation and administration of county transit services, with RTA acting as the direct
TDA recipient. This new arrangement will provide significant administrative cost savings
to the county, and will ultimately reduce the amount of RTA staff time needed to
administer the various grant and other accounting functions. None of the costs of
providing and administering county transit services will be passed on to the local
jurisdictions that fund RTA core operations.
126
B-5-2
CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL
AND TRANSIT VEHICLE SERVICES
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
THIS CONTRACT is entered into this day of , by and
between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, (hereinafter referred to as “COUNTY”)
and the SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, (hereinafter referred to
as “RTA”); this contract replaces in its entirety a previous contract approved on June 26,
2007 between the COUNTY and RTA for management, administrative and financial
services.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, COUNTY is responsible for local transit and other local
transportation services within the unincorporated areas of the County not considered
part of the regional transportation system; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY has determined a need for professional transit vehicle,
management, administrative, and financial services; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY desires coordination and consolidation of its transit
services with the regional transit services where appropriate to take advantage of
efficiencies that may result from such coordination and consolidation; and
WHEREAS, RTA is responsible for regional transit and other regional
transportation services, and is deemed trained, experienced, expert and competent to
perform such services; and
WHEREAS, RTA is presently providing similar services to the South County Area
Transit; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to obtain professional transit management and
supervision over contractual relationships it has created in order to provide transit
service in Cambria, Shandon, Templeton, Los Osos/Baywood Park, and Nipomo and
other areas within the unincorporated portions of the County as they become
necessary; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY entered into a contract with RTA on June 26, 2007 to
provide transit vehicle, management, administrative, and financial services; and
WHEREAS, said contract has been beneficial to both parties.
127
B-5-3
NOW THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
1. Retention of Services. COUNTY hereby engages RTA and RTA hereby
agrees to perform for the COUNTY the services hereinafter set forth for the
compensation hereinafter set forth, all pursuant to the terms and conditions
herein.
2. Scope of Services. Pursuant to this Contract, RTA shall provide to COUNTY
the services identified in Attachment “A” attached hereto as if entirely set forth
herein.
3. Compensation. COUNTY shall pay to RTA as compensation in full for all
services performed by RTA pursuant to this Contract, a sum not to exceed
the RTA’s actual cost of providing the services plus administrative overhead.
Said actual cost may include all appropriate overhead allocations. COUNTY
hereby warrants that funds are available from which payment may be made.
Said compensation shall be paid in the following manner: RTA shall annually
submit to the County Public Works Director by March 1 a detailed proposal to
provide the services identified in Attachment “A” and an associated amount of
compensation for providing those services for the subsequent fiscal year. The
County Public Works Director shall annually provide written consent to the
proposal, including the service level and amount of compensation by April 1
unless the proposal is determined to be unreasonable. Any annual proposal
the Public Works Director determines to be unreasonable will be placed on a
Board of Supervisors’ agenda and an RTA Board of Directors agenda so that
it may be considered and mutually agreed upon by these respective boards
prior to May 1. COUNTY shall provide written direction to the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG) that the agreed upon amount of
compensation should be allocated to the RTA directly from the share of
Transportation Development Act (TDA) monies allocated to the COUNTY
through the SLOCOG allocation process. RTA will be responsible for
submitting a claim for these monies to SLOCOG during the subsequent fiscal
year for deposit directly into RTA’s account. RTA shall account for COUNTY
monies separately from all other monies received.
COUNTY agrees to sell transportation passes on behalf of RTA for all RTA
and COUNTY transportation services at the Public Works Department Front
Desk. RTA shall reimburse COUNTY for the actual cost of selling
transportation passes on a monthly basis after the receipt of an itemized bill
from COUNTY. The amount of said reimbursement shall not exceed, on an
annual basis, the amount approved in the RTA budget for that fiscal year
without the prior written consent of the RTA. RTA shall only fund the cost of
selling transportation passes for COUNTY transportation services from
COUNTY monies and shall not use COUNTY monies for selling
transportation passes for all other RTA transportation services.
128
B-5-4
4. Transfer of funds. COUNTY shall transfer all monies remaining in its transit
fund to RTA by the effective date of this contract. RTA will use these monies
to fund COUNTY transportation services and will account for these monies
separately and in the same manner as all other COUNTY monies. This is a
one-time transfer.
5. Term of Contract. This Contract shall commence effective July 1, 2012 and
shall continue, until and unless terminated earlier as provided herein. RTA will
furnish sufficient personnel to complete all phases of the tasks.
6. Termination of Contract for Convenience of Either Party. Either party may
terminate this Contract at any time by giving to the other party One Hundred
Eighty (180) days written notice of such termination. Termination shall have
no effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties arising out of the
transaction occurring prior to the effective date of such termination. RTA shall
be paid for all work satisfactorily completed prior to the effective date of such
termination.
7. Termination of Contract for Cause. If, through any cause within its control,
either party fails to fulfill in a timely and professional manner its obligations
under this Contract, or if either party violates any of the terms or provisions of
this Contract, either party shall have the right to terminate this Contract
effective immediately upon giving written notice thereof to the party.
Termination shall have no effect upon the rights and obligations of the parties
arising out of any transaction occurring prior to the effective date of such
termination. RTA shall be paid for all work satisfactorily complete prior to the
effective date of such termination.
8. Modification. This Contract, together with Attachment “A,” (Scope of Work)
described in RTA’s proposal) constitutes the entire understanding of the
parties hereto and no changes, amendments, or alterations shall be effective
unless in writing and signed by both parties.
9. Non-Assignment of Contract. Inasmuch as this Contract is intended to secure
the specialized services of the RTA, RTA shall not assign, transfer, delegate,
or sublet this Contract or any interest herein without the prior written consent
of the COUNTY Director of Public Works and Transportation, and any such
assignment, transfer, delegation, or sublet without COUNTY’s prior written
consent shall be considered null and void.
10. Covenant. The validity, enforceability and interpretation of any of the clauses
of this Contract shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
129
B-5-5
11. Enforceability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any terms or provisions
hereof shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other terms or
provisions.
12. Employment Status. RTA shall, during the entire term of the Contract, be
construed to be an independent RTA, and shall in no event be construed to
be an employee of COUNTY. RTA understands and agrees that its
employees are not, and will not, be eligible for membership in or any benefits
from any COUNTY group plan for hospital, surgical or medical insurance, or
for membership in any COUNTY retirement program, or for paid vacation,
paid sick leave, or other leave, with or without pay, or for any other benefit
which accrues to a COUNTY employee.
13. Warranty of RTA. RTA warrants that it is properly certified and licensed under
the laws and regulations of the State of California to provide the services
herein agreed to.
14. Conflicts of Interest. No officer, employee, director or agent of COUNTY shall
participate in any decision relating to this Contract which affects his personal
interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which
he is directly or indirectly interested; nor shall any such person have any
interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract or the provisions thereof.
15. Indemnification. RTA shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County,
its officers and employees from all claims, demands, damages, costs,
expenses, judgments, attorney fees, or other losses that may be asserted by
any person or entity, including RTA, and that arise out of, or are related any
act or omission of RTA relating to this contract. The obligation to indemnity
shall be effective and shall extend to all such claims or losses in their entirety.
However, this indemnity will not extend to any claims or losses arising out of
the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its officers and
employees.
Insurance Requirements. RTA, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain
the insurance policies set forth below on all of its operations under this
Contract. All of the insurance companies providing insurance for RTA shall
have, and provide evidence of, an A.M. Best & Co. rating of A:VII or above,
unless exception is granted by Risk Manager. Further, all policies shall be
maintained for the full term of this Agreement and related warranty period if
applicable.
1. Scope and Limits of Required Insurance Policies
A. Commercial General Liability
130
B-5-6
Policy shall include coverage at least as broad as set forth in
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
Coverage (CG 00 01) with policy limits of not less than $5
(five) million dollars combined single limit per occurrence.
Policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language
or contain equivalent language in the policy:
1) The County of San Luis Obispo, its officers and
employees, is named as an additional insured for all
liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the
named insured in the performance of this Agreement.
2) The insurance provided herein shall be considered
primary coverage to the County of San Luis Obispo with
respect to any insurance or self-insured retention
maintained by the County. Further, the County’s
insurance shall be considered excess insurance only and
shall not be called upon to contribute to this insurance.
3) The policy shall not be cancelled or materially changed
without first giving thirty days prior written notice to the
County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works
and Transportation.
B. Business Automobile Policy
Policy shall include coverage at least as broad as set forth in
the liability section of Insurance Services Office Business
Auto Coverage (CA 00 010) with policy limits of no less than
$5 (five) million dollars combined single limit for each
occurrence. Said insurance shall include coverage for
owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles. Policy shall be
endorsed with the following specific language or contain
equivalent language in the policy:
1) The County of San Luis Obispo, its officers and
employees, is named as an additional insured for all
liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the
named insured in the performance of this Agreement
2) The policy shall not be cancelled or materially changed
without first giving thirty days prior written notice to the
County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works
and Transportation.
C. Worker’s Compensation / Employer’s Liability Insurance
131
B-5-7
1) Worker’s Compensation: policy shall provide statutory
limits as required by State of California/ Policy shall be
endorsed with the following specific language or contain
equivalent language in the policy:
a. RTA and its insurer shall waive all rights of
subrogation against the County, its officers and
employees for workers’ compensation losses
arising out of this Agreement.
b. The policy shall not be cancelled or materially
changed without first giving thirty days prior written
notice to the County of San Luis Obispo,
Department of Public Works and Transportation.
2) Employer’s Liability: policy shall provide $1 million
dollars per accident for bodily injury or disease.
2. Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions
All deductibles and/or self-insured retentions which apply to the
insurance policies required herein will be declared in writing and
approved by the County prior to commencement of this Agreement.
3. Documentation
Prior to commencement of work and annually thereafter for the term of
this Agreement, RTA will provide the County of San Luis Obispo,
Department of Public Works and Transportation properly executed
certificates of insurance clearly evidencing the coverage, limits, and
endorsements specified in this Agreement. Further, at the County’s
request, the RTA shall provide certified copies of the insurance policies
within thirty days of request.
4. Absence of Insurance Coverage
COUNTY may direct RTA to immediately cease all activities with
respect to this Agreement it is determines that RTA fails to carry, in full
force and effect, all insurance policies with coverage levels at or above
the limits specified in this Agreement. Any delays or expense caused
due to stopping of work and change of insurance shall be considered
RTA’s delay and expense.
16. Notices. Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions
hereof shall be in writing, and shall be sent by certified or registered mail to:
132
B-5-8
COUNTY:
County of San Luis Obispo, Room 207
San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
RTA
SLO Regional Transit Authority
179 Cross St, Suite A
San Luis Obispo California 93401
17. Progress Reports. RTA shall submit brief progress reports the COUNTY,
progress reports accompanied by invoices shall describe the work performed,
plus any problems anticipated in performing said work in future. Said reports
shall be optional upon written approval by the COUNTY director of Public
Works and Transportation.
18. Copyright. Any reports, maps, documents or other materials produced in
whole or part under this Contract shall be the property of COUNTY, and shall
not be subject to any application for copyright by or on behalf of the RTA.
19. Findings Confidential. No reports, maps, information, documents, or any other
materials given to or prepared by RTA under this Contract which COUNTY
requests, in writing, to be kept confidential, shall be made available to any
individual or organizations by RTA without the prior written approval of
COUNTY Director of Public Works and Transportation. However, RTA shall
be free to disclose such data as is publicly available, already in its
possession, or independently developed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties
hereto, upon the date first above written.
COUNTY RTA
ATTEST:
County Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk
Of the Board of Supervisors of
The County of San Luis Obispo
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority
133
B-5-9
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL EFFECT:
WARREN JENSSEN
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL EFFECT:
WARREN JENSSEN
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Date:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Chairperson San Luis Obispo County
Board of Supervisors
Date:
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
President
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority
Date:
134
B-5-10
AT TACHMENT “A”
SCOPE OF WORK
Transit services administered by the COUNTY and part of this agreement include local
transportation services in the unincorporated areas of the County of San Luis Obispo
and not considered part of the regional transportation system, and the Commute Plus
program as well as any future requirements of the COUNTY under the unmet needs
process or as requested by the COUNTY and agreed to by CONTRACTOR in writing.
The intent of the agreement is for the CONTRACTOR to provide the following services,
as appropriate, for the COUNTY with the CONTRACTOR providing as much oversight
over the day-to-day operations as well as long-range planning efforts required of the
COUNTY to comply with its transportation mandates. The COUNTY is agreeing to pay
the CONTRATOR’s actual cost of providing these services plus administrative
overhead. The following list is not meant to be all inclusive:
TRANSIT VEHICLE, MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL
1. Review, monitor compliance and renegotiate, as appropriate, contracts between
the COUNTY and all active transportation service providers.
2. Provide data collection, reconciling and monitoring of transportation service
provider billings and reporting to appropriate transportation monitoring agencies
including, but not limited to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and the
State of California.
3. Establish bank-clearing account and reconcile fare revenues with bank deposits.
4. Reconcile fuel log with billing as necessary.
5. Provide route analysis for effectiveness and efficiency and report to COUNTY on
an as-needed basis.
6. Monitor system-wide on-time performance
7. Implement and monitor all phases of the approved Short Range Transit Plans
8. Vehicle Purchase and Rehabilitation Projects:
a. Prepare bid specification and RFP
b. Award purchase/rehabilitation bid
c. Provide progress inspections during purchase/rehabilitation project
d. Complete necessary required paperwork for grant funding reimbursement
9. Upon approval of the COUNTY Director of Public Works and Transportation
provide legal services utilizing CONTRACTOR Counsel.
10. Provide reprographics, including designing all schedules and marketing
materials.
135
B-5-11
11. Utilize State or COUNTY contracts for general purchasing of various items as
appropriate.
12. Attend meetings with COUNTY as needed.
13. Process and monitor Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable.
14. Prepare Monthly financial summaries.
15. Prepare Monthly analysis of revenues and expenditures compared to budget.
16. Prepare Monthly financial analysis by service provider including:
a. Revenues and expenditures
b. Farebox Ratio
c. Passengers
d. Cost and Subsidy Per Passenger
17. Preparation of annual budget.
18. Preparation of annual Transportation Development Act (TDA) claim.
19. Preparation of State Controller’s Report.
20. Coordination of and responsibility for annual TDA audit.
21. Prepare recommendations for increasing operational efficiencies, up to and
including consolidation of COUNTY services with RTA or other services.
22. Prepare appropriate Request for Proposals to secure services for fixed assets.
23. Provide all vehicles and labor to meet transit services agreed to herein.
24. Write grant applications on behalf of the County of San Luis Obispo for
transportation purposes, purchase vehicles that will be owned by RTA that will be
used to provide transportation services for the COUNTY.
25. All financial and budgetary reports outlined herein shall provide sufficient detail
so as to report COUNTY transportation services separately from all other
CONTRACTOR transportation services.
26. All financial and budgetary reports for COUNTY transportation services shall
have subledgers or reports to provide sufficient detail to report separately by
service program within COUNTY transportation services.
v:\managmnt\jd\slorta - contract for mgmt-admin-financial-transit vehicle services march 2012 attachment a.docx
136
C-1-1
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
Executive Committee Meeting
Minutes 2/8/2012
C-1
Members Present: Fred Strong, President
Adam Hill, Vice President
Bruce Gibson, Past President
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Geoff Straw, Executive Director
Aimee Wyatt, Manager, Marketing & Service Planning
Tania Arnold, CFO & Director of Administration
Anna Mafort-Lacy, Administrative Assistant
Tim McNulty, County Legal Counsel
Also Present: Eric Greening
Kate Chase
Ron De Carli, SLOCOG
Pete Rodgers, SLOCOG
Aida Nicklin, SLOCOG
1. Call to Order and Roll Call:
President Fred Strong called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Silent Roll Call was taken and a
quorum was present.
2. Public Comments:
Mr. Eric Greening, Atascadero, welcomed Mr. Geoff Straw as the new Executive Director. He
asked if paying drivers a higher wage in order to reduce turnover and ongoing new driver
training would save money in the long run. He asked if RTA might push back on the North
County Transit Plan. Options 1 and 2 are disruptive to RTA, as they would prevent Route 9 from
making connections in San Luis Obispo during the midday hours. He expressed other concerns
about Option 2.
137
C-1-2
President Strong closed public comment.
Ms. Aimee Wyatt said there will be conference call regarding the North County plan tomorrow
afternoon. Ideally, RTA wants to keep its hourly service.
3. Information Items
A. Information Items:
A-1 Executive Director’s Report
Mr. Straw announced the current bus operator training class of 10 is expected to be in
service by the end of February. He said the maintenance department is doing a great job
and is one of the best run shops he has seen.
Ms. Wyatt outlined service planning planned this year. There is a short-term need for extra
express trips throughout the system. We are running on average of 35-40 passengers per
trip and have standees during commute times every day. Staff is looking at adding express
service on Route 10, particularly in the afternoon. She said there will be some timing
changes for the June 10 service changes.
On Route 9, staff is looking at moving up the departure time by five minutes out of Paso
Robles, which will improve arrival times into San Luis Obispo. Staff is working with Paso
Express and Atascadero Transit to possibly modify their times in order to increase
efficiencies at key connection points.
Route 10 continues to have difficulty making timely connections at the Pismo Beach
Premium Outlets. Staff is considering making some minor route modification to save 2-4
minutes per direction. This may eliminate South Street and travel down South Higuera. She
said we are also working with SLO Transit for some possible Route 2 retiming and service
efficiencies along South Higuera.
Staff continues to work with Morro Bay Transit and is looking at all options for reinstating
hourly connections between Los Osos and Morro Bay. San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) has worked hard to create a plan for an Estero Bay Shuttle service.
More information will be available in a few weeks.
Mr. Straw announced the public hearings regarding the downtown San Luis Obispo Transit
Center project, which is slated for 3 p.m. on February 22. He said staff will also be kicking off
the US101 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) study in conjunction with SLOCOG on February 22.
138
C-1-3
Mr. Straw concluded the Executive Directors report.
President Strong opened public comment.
Mr. Greening asked if this BRT study is primarily for North County.
Mr. Pete Rodgers said yes, it is for North County.
President Strong inquired about bike rack space when buses are running at full capacity.
Ms. Wyatt said she hasn’t seen any recent reports about bike rack capacity issues. However,
she noted space continues to be fairly limited during peak times with only six racks.
Mr. Straw said maintenance staff is investigating alternatives to the three racks in the back
of the bus. Staff is also considering a policy change that would allow riders to bring their
bikes on board for the last run if the racks are full. This is a common practice among transit
agencies.
Mr. Ron DeCarli suggested implementing bike racks or lockers at designated stops that
continue to have bike capacity problems.
Mr. Greening thought it’s generally not a bike rack problem on the express runs, but on the
local runs—particularly by the time they get to Santa Margarita Southbound and on
weekend runs.
Mr. Straw invited Mr. Tim McNulty, County Counsel, to discuss the Joint Powers Agreement
(JPA) as it relates to Alternate Board Members.
Mr. McNulty proposed having a discussion at an upcoming meeting to amend the JPA,
allowing alternates to fully participate on the RTA Board. He suggested other changes, such
as specific language that would allow RTA to borrow money.
Mr. Straw noted RTA does not have stipends for Board members and suggested bringing
this to the Board for further discussion. Past President Gibson was supportive to offering
stipends to the city representatives. Mr. DeCarli suggested this be brought to the Board for
further discussion. President Strong thought there could be different options, such as
matching SLOCOG’s stipend of $100 per meeting, or $50, or compensate for mileage. He
suggested including this as part of the budget package. Mr. Straw said staff would present a
couple of different options.
139
C-1-4
Ms. Wyatt discussed the Youth Ride-Free program, which may replace the Summer Break
Pass. All kids in grades kindergarten through 12th grade would ride free on all participating
transit agencies during the months of June, July and August.
She said we currently have some open ad space on the side of the buses, which could be
used for a marketing campaign if not sold.
Mr. Greening said he’s always happy to see board members riding the bus, such as
Supervisor James Patterson.
Ms. Tania Arnold announced staff now has the audited financial statements. She said YTD
financials are doing very well. Staff continues to monitor fuel prices. Pass sales have
increased dramatically.
President Strong closed public comment.
4. Action Items
B-1 Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Assumptions
Ms. Arnold reviewed the budget assumptions. RTA continues to remain conservative,
particularly regarding anticipated revenues. Next year’s budget will have large capital
procurements, but most are grant-funded. The objectives for next year include maintaining
service levels, increasing reserves, improving efficiencies and addressing capital needs.
Initial Sate Transit Assistance (STA) funding appears to hold steady at current levels. Staff is
increasing budgeted farebox revenue based upon current trends. Staff may evaluate a fare
program change, but at this point it is not projected.
Estimates for funding levels for 5311, 5307 and Local Transit Fund (LTF) are the same as the
current fiscal year. However there are substantial assumptions that depend upon UZA
designations for the markets we serve. She thought UZA decisions would be made in March. Mr.
Rodgers said it probably would not be decided upon until later in the year.
Ms. Arnold began discussing expenses by stating that the number one priority is to maintain
current service levels and review proposed service planning for June. Fuel is budgeted at $4.25
per gallon during the next fiscal year, but is being closely monitored. CalTIP premiums are
increasing by 15%. Workers compensation increased by 44% last year and is increasing by 28%
this year. This is subject to change and staff is working on ways to reduce this cost. The number
of budgeted positions remains consistent. Ms. Arnold reviewed the budget calendar.
140
C-1-5
Mr. Straw said SLOCOG has estimated LTF revenue is expected to increase by 4.5-9% Staff took
a conservative approach and is assuming levels similar to the current fiscal year. STA funding
and a carryover should present significant increases. However, staff is maintaining levels at this
time. He said a cost-of-living increase is not budgeted at this time. However, he said this may be
included if sufficient revenue permits it, as non-represented staff has not received an increase in
three years.
President Strong said these have been tough times and it is nice to see everyone pulling
together for the good of the company.
Past President Gibson asked why CalTIP insurance premiums are expected to go up by 15%. Ms.
Arnold said a former RTA staff member provided incorrect mileage to CalTIP last year and only
included half of the year. CalTIP is a pooled insurance plan based upon actual losses. Therefore,
staff is expecting a sizeable return, which will offset a large anticipated increase. Past President
Gibson inquired about the dollar figure for 28% increase on Workers Compensation. Ms. Arnold
said this is roughly $28,000. Past President Gibson briefly discussed the County Human
Resources loss prevention team and how they reduce costs.
Mr. DeCarli asked how staff is addressing capital reserves to replace buses in coming years. Ms.
Arnold said this is something staff has as an objective in its Strategic Business Plan the Board
approved last October. Mr. DeCarli noted the need for additional express runs and asked if any
additional routes are in the budget assumptions. How will staff address overcrowding problems?
Ms. Arnold said there are some unproductive routes throughout the day. Some of these
resources will be reallocated. Therefore no additional routes will be added. For example, there is
a route 10 run that staff is proposing to run at a different time. Mr. DeCarli asked if staff
anticipates a need to increase trips next year. He recommended looking at a pro-rata increase to
base funding—from STA and LTF—that will go into a general fund.
President Strong opened public comment.
Mr. Greening asked if the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) would be
reviewing the budget assumptions next week. He noted the potential hit to the North County if
it loses its urban area status—a loss of around $600,000-700,000 in funding. He addressed
alternative options. Mr. DeCarli said there are a lot of issues up in the air and subject to change.
He said staff’s recommendation of maintaining base level funding makes a lot of sense. He
discussed different sources of funding and concerns about air quality in the county.
President Strong closed public comment.
141
C-1-6
Past President Gibson moved to approve the Action Agenda. Vice President Hill seconded, and
the motion carried on a voice vote.
5. Consent Agenda Items
C-1 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of 12/14/11
President Strong had a question on page C-1-2 of the meeting minutes regarding MBAC
installing public art in Morro Bay. He believed Past President Gibson said it. He believed this to
be true.
Mr. Greening requested a clarification under Public Comments, line 4, regarding the Executive
Director’s salary increase. He asked to change it to say, “He hoped he would not expect a salary
increase.” He hopes it will be possible to see a salary increase for the staff, including the
Executive Director. However, Mr. Greening was referring specifically to what happened with the
previous Executive Director.
Past President Gibson moved to approve the Consent Agenda with amendments. Vice President
Hill seconded, and the motion carried on a voice vote.
6. Closed Session Items:
D-1 Public Employee Discipline (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.5)
The committee went to closed session at 10:40 a.m. and returned to open session at
10:50 a.m.
7. Open Session: Mr. McNulty reported out of closed session. No final action was taken and
therefore, nothing to report.
8. Adjournment: President Strong adjourned the meeting at 10:52 a.m.
Next Executive Committee Meeting: April 11, 2012
Minutes Prepared by Anna Mafort-Lacy
142
C-2-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF March 7, 2012
C-2
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
TONY FERRARA, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
BRUCE GIBSON, SECOND DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (Past President)
SHELLY HIGGINBOTHAM, CITY OF PISMO BEACH
ADAM HILL, THIRD DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (Vice President)
JAN HOWELL MARX, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FRANK MECHAM, FIRST DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TOM O’MALLEY, CITY OF ATASCADERO
JAMES PATTERSON, FIFTH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILL NICHOLS, CITY OF GROVER BEACH
FRED STRONG, CITY OF PASO ROBLES (President)
PAUL TEIXEIRA, FOURTH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
WILLIAM YATES, CITY OF MORRO BAY
STAFF PRESENT:
GEOFF STRAW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TANIA ARNOLD, CFO & DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
TIM MCNULTY, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COUNSEL
ANNA MAFORT-LACY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Fred Strong called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. A roll
call was taken and a quorum was present.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Eric Greening, Atascadero, said the Regional Transportation Advisory
Committee (RTAC) met on February 15. Although the draft minutes are not included in the Board
agenda, he said that he hopes the issues discussed will be included in the Executive Director’s report. He
said the topics are important as they lead up to discussions at Board meetings. He said he hopes to see
the RTAC minutes included in future Board agendas in a timely manner.
Mr. Greening requested a staff analysis if paying drivers more money would help reduce long-term costs
to continuous training classes and attrition.
President Strong closed public comment.
143
C-2-2
A. INFORMATION AGENDA:
A-1 Executive Director’s Report: Mr. Geoff Straw began his Executive Director’s report by saying that
nine of the ten recruits have completed training and are now driving. He acknowledged one of our buses
was in an collision on February 13 and the driver of the car was injured. The investigation is ongoing, but
the bus operator was still on probation and has been relieved of duty.
The maintenance department continues to run smoothly, given the age and miles of the fleet. Two of
the buses have over 900,000 miles. Bus 161 is at Brummit for an engine replacement and another bus in
for warranty repair of the rear axle.
Four public meetings are scheduled to gather input regarding service tweaks on all routes, as well as
slight fare increases on the RTA and Regional 31-day passes. Mr. Straw reviewed the dates and locations
of these meetings. No fare changes have been implemented since August 2010.
He said staff is involved with several studies, such as the San Luis Obispo City transit center, the North
County Transit Plan and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) study. Mr. Straw briefly reviewed the Youth
Summer Ride Free program and noted RTA will participate in Earth Day at El Chorro Park and Bike
Month.
He highlighted four items on the financial results. Administration is at 47.5% of budget for labor, partly
due to the departure of Mr. Edward King and the payout of his benefits. Staff overestimated insurance
costs in the FY11-12 budget, which are currently at 37% of budget. Fuel costs have increased
significantly, and we are at 60% of budget, which is slightly over the par amount—58% to date. Finally,
Mr. Straw addressed bus rehabilitation costs, which are currently at 33% but is expected to rise with the
engine replacement for bus 161.
On the July 2011 through January 2012 weekend and total productivity sheet, Mr. Straw pointed out the
farebox recovery ratio continues to do very well—up 31.7%. Fixed route ridership is up 17.6% over this
time last year. Productivity is running at almost 20 riders per hour. Finally, he said subsidies per
passenger trip is established by taking the total cost to operate minus the fare box revenue divided by
the number of riders. Fixed route per passenger trip is $3.99. Runabout is running over $60 per
passenger trip. He continued to address some of the ridership numbers.
Mr. Straw said staff is working with county counsel on a number of items, including the review and
possible revisions to the bylaws.
RTA and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) staff are finalizing the unmet transit needs
and presented offering some kind of stipend to RTA Board members. He suggested bringing back some
information in a future meeting for discussion. Board Member Jan Marx recommended bringing this
item back to the Board in December.
Mr. Straw said the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released new charter regulations in 2008 in
order to help ensure public transit agencies do not compete unfairly with the private sector. RTA staff is
working to develop a charter policy—primarily for community events—and will bring a draft policy
recommendation to the Board at a future meeting.
144
C-2-3
Board Member Tom O’Malley noted there are some exceptions to the rules for certain community
events.
Board Member Frank Mecham pointed to page A-1-10 and asked for the definition of a “dump count”.
Ms. Tania Arnold said this is based on the electronic fare boxes. Every time data is pulled or transferred
from the electronic fare box, it is called a dump.
President Strong asked for an explanation of the difference between an RTA 31-day and the Regional
31-Day passes so the public understands the associated costs and how they work. Mr. Straw answered
the RTA 31-Day passes only work on RTA routes, which include 9, 10 and 11-15. The Regional pass works
on RTA, South County Area Transit, San Luis Obispo City Transit, Atascadero Transit, Paso Express, and
Morro Bay Transit. Therefore, a portion of the proposed $64 for the Regional 31-day pass would go to
each participating jurisdiction.
Mr. Straw said staff has narrowed the vehicle procurement to three vendors—NovaBus, Gillig and El
Dorado. A demonstrator bus will arrive on March 13. Staff will send out invitations to all Board members
for RTA and South County Area Transit (SCAT) to come out and take a look at the vehicle and take a test
ride on one of the routes. More information will be provided at the next Board meeting.
He said staff is implementing a policy change that will allow bicycles on the bus during the last run if all
spots on the bike rack are taken and space is available. Board Member Shelly Higginbotham asked what
happens if, mid-route, a wheelchair passenger gets on the bus and there no longer is room for the
bicycles. Mr. Straw responded by saying staff would most likely send a Runabout to pick up that
passenger. He said staff would revisit our existing procedures and bring it back to the Board in a
subsequent meeting.
Mr. Straw concluded his report.
President Strong opened Board comment.
President Strong opened to public comment.
Mr. Greening said the route tweaks look good, particularly the extra evening trips. He observed the
Southbound Route 9 will depart Paso Robles five minutes early to allow for better connections in San
Luis Obispo, although this makes connections with Atascadero Transit less likely. Keeping a bus on the
freeway is not always the most efficient service from riders’ perspective. The most efficient way to serve
a corridor is to have a bus begin at one end, stop along the way and go to the end point. He said there
will be no connectivity between the two systems at the Templeton Park and Ride. He said alternative
three of the North County Transit Plan is the solution to this problem. Let’s not make the same mistakes
south of Atascadero as we did to the northern portion.
President Strong suggested local jurisdictions in which RTA travels check their restrictions on where bus
stops can or cannot be placed. Perhaps staff can look at those regulations and see how they can better
work with the system.
Board Member Tom O’Malley said his staff – including engineers – is working with RTA staff to improve
efficiencies and meet the needs of all the riders.
145
C-2-4
Mr. Straw pointed the Board to the audited financial statements in the packet for their review. The fare
box recovery ratio was at 21.9% last year. Additionally, there were no deficiencies in internal control or
any other issues of noncompliance.
Past President Bruce Gibson inquired about some verbiage in the Auditor’s letter regarding manager’s
discussion. Ms. Arnold said this is specific language required in the audit. Managers have the option of
including a letter explaining what is in the audit. In the past and going forward, she said she does not
foresee the need to include this letter unless there is some specific issue to be addressed.
President Strong closed public comment.
President Strong closed Board comment.
B. ACTION AGENDA:
B-1 RTA FY12-13 Budget Assumptions: Mr. Straw said this item was discussed and endorsed by
the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) on February 15. The main goal is to maintain
current service levels. Another objective is to increase capital reserves and continue working with
groups such as SLOCOG. The budget assumptions are that funding levels will remain neutral. Transit
Development Act (TDA) funds may climb as much as 9.4% for the coming year. Staff is requesting a pro-
rata increase from all jurisdictions. Fare revenue is higher than anticipated. The budget is $955,000. Staff
is looking at a nominal increase on the 31-day passes. Staff is aggressively going after all FTA funds to be
consistent with current funding levels. TDA is made up of two sections, the Local Transit Fund (LTF) and
the State Transit Administration (STA). Although staff not covered under the collective bargaining
agreement has not received a cost of living increase (COLA) in three years, this will not be in requested
unless funding meets expectations.
Expenses are largely driven by the number of hours we operate. Fuel continues to be the wild card.
CalTIP liability will go up about 15%. Worker’s Compensation is increasing about 28%. Staffing levels will
remain static. PERS and Blue Cross insurance are expected to climb 10% and 15%, respectively.
Mr. Straw directed the Board to a calendar of dates for the route changes expected to take place on
June 10.
President Strong opened Board comment.
Board Member Higginbotham inquired how much revenue staff was expecting to raise with the fee
increase for 31-day passes. Mr. Straw said this analysis was not yet available but would be presented at
the next Board meeting.
Vice President Adam Hill asked how much the COLA increase would cost should funding be secured. Mr.
Straw answered that staff did an initial analysis but there were too many outstanding variables to share
any numbers at this time.
Board Member Tony Ferrara said the report was very comprehensive and thorough.
146
C-2-5
President Strong asked if staff would be sending this budget to local agencies to review. Mr. Straw said
this process typically occurs at RTAC — which will be on April 18. President Strong observed this does
not allow much time. Ms. Arnold said it creates difficulty because staff must wait until SLOCOG’s
meeting at the beginning of April before we know what our funding levels will be. She said
representatives from member jurisdictions can take the budget assumptions from this meeting and
Exhibit A of the April SLOCOG agenda.
President Strong opened to public comment.
Mr. Greening pointed to page B-1-2, Expenses, bullet 1, and asked for clarification of the last sentence.
Also, what would be the public process prior to cutting service? He praised the Budget Assumptions and
hoped all jurisdictions would follow suit with good, concise general plans and documents. Mr. Straw
said it is difficult to project what service reductions would be required should funding be cut. However,
there is a specific public participation process—particularly if proposed cuts were 10% or more.
President Strong closed public comment.
President Strong closed Board comment.
Board Member Tony Ferrara moved to approve the Action Agenda item B-1. Board Member James
Patterson seconded and the motion carried on a roll call vote.
B-2 Summer Youth Ride Free Program: Mr. Straw briefly discussed the staff recommendation
to offer free rides to children from kindergarten through 12th grade beginning June 1 through August 31.
President Strong asked if RTA would carry youth from jurisdictions that choose not to participate. Mr. Straw
said yes.
President Strong opened Board comment.
President Strong opened public comment.
President Strong closed public comment.
President Strong closed Board comment.
Board Member Tom O’Malley moved to approve the Action Agenda item B-2. Board Member Paul
Teixeira seconded and the motion carried on a roll call vote.
147
C-2-6
C. CONSENT AGENDA:
C-1 Vehicle Procurement – (Prop 1B)
C-2 Executive Committee meeting minutes of December 14, 2011
C-3 RTA Board meeting minutes of January 4, 2012
C-4 Prop 1B Safety and Security for 2010/2011: Transit System Safety, Security and
Disaster Response Account Program and Authorized Agent Signature Authority
C-5 Authorization for the Execution of a Master Agreement and Program
Supplements for State-Funded Transit Projects
C-6 Runabout Passenger No Show Policy
C-7 Title VI Policy, Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program Updates
C-8 Paso Robles-Fort Hunter Liggett fixed route service Updated MOU
C-9 CalTIP Board of Directors Staff Appointments
C-10 Nationwide 457 Trustee Change
President Strong asked the Board if there were any items to be pulled. He saw none and moved for a
motion.
Board Member Frank Mecham moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Board Member Shelly
Higginbotham seconded and the motion carried on a roll call vote.
D: RTA CLOSED SESSION:
D-1 None
E. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member O’Malley welcomed Mr. Straw and said he’s doing a great job. Atascadero staff
members had some questions and he quickly came to meet with them about residents with public
transit needs, as well as special events.
F. ADJOURNMENT: President Strong adjourned the RTA meeting at 9:15 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Anna Mafort-Lacy
RTA, Administrative Assistant
148
C-3-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: C-3
TOPIC: RTAC Bylaws Revision
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and Adopt Staff Recommendation
to amend the RTAC Bylaws to identify
primary and alternate members for each
appointing agency.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
At the February 15 RTAC meeting, RTA staff suggested that it might be instructional to
review the existing RTAC bylaws and determine if there might be sections that could be
improved – particularly as it relates to participation on the committee and the relative
difficulty in attaining a quorum in the recent past. The ensuing discussion was focused
on RTAC appointment terms, member representation, and the possibility of appointing
alternate members.
The existing RTAC bylaws were adopted by the RTA Board on May 3, 2006. The
RTAC’s primary role is to advise the RTA Board on transit issues that affect the region
including, but not limited to, the coordination and consolidation of transit services,
service changes, proposed budget, transit planning, and performance audit findings. In
addition, the RTAC serves as the Review Committee for appeals by transit users.
The RTAC is comprised of ten members, of which eight are directly appointed by the
following appointing agencies:
1. City of San Luis Obispo
2. City of Morro Bay
3. City of Atascadero
4. City of Paso Robles
5. County of San Luis Obispo
6. SCAT Board of Directors
7. Cuesta College
8. California Polytechnic State
University
The remaining two members – representing fixed route riders and dial-a-ride riders –
are appointed directly by the RTA Board of Directors.
The RTAC bylaws require a minimum of six members to be present to take any action.
Unfortunately, over the past two fiscal years, a total of seven RTAC meetings were
scheduled but a quorum was present for only three of those meetings. As a result, the
RTA Board may not be receiving fully-considered input from technical staff members
149
C-3-2
representing their respective agencies. As required in the bylaws, alternate members
are permitted, although appointments must be submitted in writing and each candidate
must receive RTA Board. The bylaws require that RTA staff notify jurisdictions when an
appointed member misses three consecutive RTAC meetings, but that has apparently
not been closely followed; in fact, we can find no record of a jurisdiction being notified in
the past.
Based on discussions with RTAC members present at the February 15, 2012 meeting
(no quorum was present) and at the ensuing April 18, 2012 RTAC meeting (quorum
present), it was suggested that RTA seek nominations from each of the directly-
appointing agencies for alternate members. It was also suggested that RTA staff
proposed both a primary and alternate member for the two RTA Board-appointed
positions (representing fixed route and dial-a-ride users). RTA staff also committed to
prominently posting each RTAC meeting agenda in RTA and SCAT driver rooms, and
that requesting that other transit operators in the county also display the RTAC meeting
agenda in their respective driver rooms.
150
1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
REGIONAL TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS
Adopted – May 2, 2012
ARTICLE I
FUNCTIONS
The purpose of the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) is to
improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of regional public transit services
provided by the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA). RTAC shall also
review agenda items for transit issues, and provide comment and recommendations
and other such advice as may be requested by SLORTA.
A major function of the RTAC is to review issues of operational and financial
significance presented by appropriate RTA staff members. The review by RTAC may
include a recommendation that will become part of the staff agenda reports presented to
the SLORTA Boards of Directors.
Specific functions of RTAC for SLORTA are:
A. To advise on transit issues that affect the region including, but not limited to, the
coordination and consolidation of transit services, service changes, proposed
budget, transit planning, and performance audit findings.
B. To serve as the Review Committee for appeals by transit users.
ARTICLE II
MEMBERSHIP
Section 1 - Membership Regular members, representing various public transit
interests, shall be appointed to the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee as
follows:
A. One representative from each JPA jurisdiction, per Appointing Authorities listed
in Exhibit “A”. (Alternatively, Arroyo Grande, the County of San Luis Obispo,
Grover Beach and Pismo Beach may choose to appoint one representative from
the SCAT JPA.)
B. One representative of fixed route transit users
C. One representative of ADA paratransit users
D. One representative of Cuesta College
E. One representative of California Polytechnic State University
151
2
Section 2 - Voting Each representative shall have one vote. All decisions shall be
supported by a vote of the majority membership.
Section 3 - Alternates and Absences In the event a member cannot attend a meeting,
the appointing agency may, in writing, designate an alternate. As part of the
appointment process, RTA staff shall seek both a primary and an alternate member
from each appointing agency. The appointing agency will be notified by RTA staff within
30 days of each occurrence when the jurisdiction is not represented at a regularly
scheduled meeting. In the event of three consecutive absences by either its primary or
alternate representative, and a new representative shall be appointed RTA staff shall
inquire in writing if a new representative from the appointing agency should be
appointed to serve the remainder of the term.
Section 4 - Terms Members shall serve a term of 4 years, except transit operator
members, who shall serve without regard to such term limits. Initial appointments will be
for either 2-year or 4 year terms, chosen by lot at the first meeting, to stagger term
expiration dates. Members may be reappointed for additional terms.
Section 5 – Appointments Appointments to the RTAC shall be made by the appointing
agencies shown on Exhibit A, in accordance with each agency's procedures for such
appointments. The SLORTA Board of Directors shall ratify all appointments.
ARTICLE III
OFFICERS
Section 1 - Officers The officers of the RTAC shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair.
Section 2 - Election of Officers The Chair and Vice-Chair shall be chosen annually by
a majority vote of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee membership present
at the last meeting of each fiscal year to assume responsibility at the first meeting of the
next fiscal year.
Section 3 – Vacancies A mid-term vacancy in an office shall be filled by a majority vote
of committee members present at the next regular meeting. The newly elected officer
shall serve the remainder of the term.
Section 4 - Duties of Officers
A. Chair
1. To preside at all meetings of the RTAC.
2. To call meetings of the RTAC in accordance with these Bylaws.
3. To see that all actions of the RTAC are properly taken.
4. To appoint subcommittees.
5. To review, amend if necessary, and approve the agenda for RTAC
meetings.
152
3
B. Vice-Chair
1. To perform all duties and responsibilities of the Chair during the temporary
absence or disability of the Chair, or on permanent absence of the Chair,
until a new Chair is selected.
2. To assist the Chair in the conduct of RTAC business.
Section 5 - Staff Support
SLORTA staff support shall be provided to perform the following duties:
1. Keep the minutes of all meetings.
2. Give or serve all notices to appointing agencies and members required by
these Bylaws.
3. Prepare an agenda for each meeting, and send it to the Chair one week
prior to the meeting.
4. Be custodian of RTAC records.
ARTICLE IV
MEETINGS
Section 1 - Meetings Meetings shall be scheduled no less than quarterly and prior to
the SLORTA board meetings in sufficient advance of the finalization of the SLORTA
agendas that RTAC recommendations can be included on the staff reports. Additional
meetings may be scheduled as needed.
Section 2 - Quorum A quorum shall consist of six members of the Committee. No
formal action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum, except to adjourn the meeting
to a later date.
Section 3 - Notice A written copy of the agenda and related staff reports for each
meeting shall be given to members at least 3 working days prior to the meeting.
Section 4 - Proceedings Except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, all meetings of
the RTAC should be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act and Robert's Rules of
Order, Newly Revised.
ARTICLE V
SUB-COMMITTEES
The Chair shall appoint the members and determine the duties of Sub-Committees, as
directed by the RTAC. Sub-Committees shall make and submit recommendations to the
full Committee for appropriate action.
153
4
ARTICLE VI
EFFECTIVE DATE
These Bylaws and any amendments shall become effective upon adoption by the RTAC
and ratification by SLORTA Board of Directors.
EXHIBIT A
SLORTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TRANSIT REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTING AGENCY
San Luis Obispo Transit City of San Luis Obispo
Morro Bay Transit Services City of Morro Bay
Atascadero Transit Services City of Atascadero
Paso Robles Transit Services City of Paso Robles
County Transit Services County of San Luis Obispo
South County Area Transit SCAT Board of Directors
USER MEMBERS APPOINTING AGENCY
Dial-A-Ride Representative SLORTA Board of Directors
Fixed Route Representative SLORTA Board of Directors
APPOINTING AGENCY
Cuesta College Cuesta College
Cal Poly Representative California Polytechnic State University
154
C-4-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: C-4
TOPIC: RTAC Appointment
ACTION: Approve
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appointment Eric Greening to RTAC fixed route
representative
RTAC RECOMMENDATION: Approve
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
RTA staff has been soliciting applications to renew or fill appointments on the Regional
Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC). Mr. Eric Greening submitted an application to
continue his appointment as a Fixed Route representative on RTAC.
Staff recommends the Board approve the appointment of Mr. Eric Greening to the
Regional Transit Advisory Committee.
155
C-5-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: C-5
TOPIC: Contract Renewal - AGP Video Production of Board
Meetings
ACTION: Approve
PRESENTED BY: Tania Arnold, Director, Finance & Administration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Contract Renewal
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In April 2012, the SLOCOG Board approved a contract with AGP Video to televise all
SLOCOG and RTA meetings with costs shared on a pro-rata basis. The terms of the
existing contract provide video services for $715/meeting (8:30 to 12:00), plus $132/hour
overtime for all overtime hours beyond the 31/2-hour length, and $45/hour for additional
technical consulting. The effective date of the existing contract is through June 30, 2012).
The proposed new contract will run from July 2012 to June 2013 with an increase of $35 in
the base rate for meetings held at locations other than the County Board of Supervisors
Chambers.
The contract reflects the existing agreement made by AGP Video. The annual cost of six
(6) RTA meetings that are filmed is approximately $5,005.
The meetings will continue to be broadcasted live and replayed on Channel 21 as well as
being webcast on the Internet at www.slospan.org. The SLO-SPAN network, produced by
AGP Video, is a public service of Charter Communications and provides televised access
of government and other meetings held throughout the county. For schedule updates,
check www.slospan.org, additional replays of meetings are cablecast as the schedule
permits. Meeting tapes are available through local libraries.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Executive Director to sign a contract with AGP Video at a cost not to exceed
$5,005 for FY2013.
156
C-5-2
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE VIDEO PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA) BOARD MEETINGS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(hereinafter referred to as “RTA”) and AGP Video, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
“Contractor”).
Witnesseth:
WHEREAS, RTA has a need for special services to provide video production services to
document the RTA Board meetings and to distribute copies of the video as needed; and
WHEREAS, AGP Video is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform such
services;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Without exception Contractor will provide gavel-to-gavel, unedited coverage of all regular
RTA meetings held from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. RTA shall provide
Contractor with current calendar of scheduled meetings when the calendar is approved;
B. The agenda item number and description will be presented, whenever possible
C. Contractor will videotape special meetings of the RTA Board as requested by appropriate
representatives of RTA.
D. Contractor will archive all meetings within three business days of the meeting date.
E. Contractor will distribute in a timely manner two (2) copies each of the Board meetings to
the RTA offices and one (1) copy to the San Luis Obispo City County Library;
F. Contractor will provide one (1) copy to Charter Channel 21, the Countywide Government
and access channel for cablecast. The initial replay of the meeting will be at 6 pm on the
day it is held. The meeting will be scheduled to replay at a variety of times a minimum of
six (6) times in the week after the meeting date, and may stay in the program schedule up
until the next meeting is held.
G. Contractor may provide additional copies of the meeting tapes to the public, upon request,
at a cost not to exceed $25 per tape. RTA or other agencies requesting copies of
additional DVDs will pay $20 plus tax per DVD.
H. The work to be done by the contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall include the
furnishing of all labor, supervision, equipment, materials, supplies and all other items
necessary to perform the services required.
I. The Contractor may provide videotaping, cable casting, or other related services for
“special” meetings upon request of RTA.
II. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
A. The Contractor shall at all times during the term of this Agreement provide high quality,
efficient, technically-competent and professional service in accordance with the standards
of the industry and to the reasonable satisfaction of RTA.
B. All equipment used by the Contractor to perform work under this Agreement shall conform
to reasonable industry standards and shall be maintained and kept in good repair at all
times.
157
C-5-3
C. Contractor shall, at all times during the contracted events, have at least one employee in
the production facility (control room) who has a minimum of two years video production
experience in environments similar to that of RTA or the County of San Luis Obispo.
D. Contractor will ensure that all production employees involved in providing services under
this Agreement have been thoroughly trained on use of the County of San Luis Obispo’s
control room equipment prior to working on an event at the County Government Center.
E. RTA strongly prefers that Contractor production employees assigned to work on any event
under .this Agreement have experience in working on video production of at least 4 live
government meetings prior to working on any event covered under this Agreement.
F. Contractor will act with due diligence to meet the following quality production expectations:
• Camera Takes are to be cut or fade away. There will be no "wipes."
• Picture in Picture is employed when appropriate.
• Camera ·takes are to follow the speaker as quickly as possible.
• Captioning slates are to be displayed as quickly as possible following a subject change.
• Sound levels are to be kept consistent within the best possible range.
G. Contractor will meet with RTA on a biannual basis to discuss performance and operational
issues. RTA will schedule such meetings and notify Contractor in writing of the established
schedule. The frequency of such performance reviews may be reduced at the RTA’s
discretion.
H. Contractor will not make any hardware configuration changes to County-owned equipment
nor remove any County-owned property from the Board Chambers control room without
prior written consent or involvement of the County’s Information Technology Department
staff.
I. Contractor will not modify nor upgrade any software used on County owned equipment,
including the installation of new releases or patches, without prior consent or involvement
of the County’s Information Technology Department support staff.
J. At the conclusion of any/all meetings at the facilities of all other agencies or organizations,
Contractor shall return all equipment to predefined, default states. As these states may
change from time-to-time, they are not specified within this Agreement.
K. Production primary recordings are to be digital with an analog back up.
L. Master copies are to be digital where possible.
III. EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Contractor shall, during the entire term of the Agreement, be construed to be an independent
Contractor and nothing in this agreement is intended nor shall be construed to create an employer-
employee relationship.
IV. OWNERSHIP
DVDs or other materials produced in whole or part under this agreement shall be the property of RTA.
Any copies of meetings or other materials produced in whole or part under this agreement shall be the
property of RTA and none shall be subject to an application for copyright by or on behalf of Contractor
V. COMPENSATION
RTA shall pay Contractor per meeting compensation of $715 per meeting for all regular RTA Board
meetings that extend from 2.0 to 3.5 hours in length. RTA shall pay Contractor $132 per hour overtime
for all overtime hours beyond the 3.5 hour length billed in 15-minute increments, rounded-up. For
Meetings of RTA that are 2 hours or less, RTA shall pay Contractor a reduced per meeting rate of
$500. For “special” meetings, the same rates, as above, shall apply, depending on the length of the
meeting. Meetings held at locations other than the County Board of Supervisors Chambers will be
billed at a base rate of $750 per meeting.
158
C-5-4
VI. INVOICES
Contractor shall submit to RTA an invoice detailing the services performed during the preceding
period. Contractor shall specify the length of time of both the RTA sessions separately on each
invoice.
VII. PAYMENTS
RTA shall pay within twenty (20) days after receipt of a complete and accurate invoice of video
production/tape distribution activities.
VIII. INSURANCE
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance - Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG
0001).
2. Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage Form Number CA 0001. Code 1
(any auto).
3. Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s
Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions liability insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s profession.
Architects and engineers’ coverage is to be endorsed to include contractual liability.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance - Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general
aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit.
2. Automobile Liability - $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
IX INDEMNIFICATION
The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers and employees
from all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, judgments, attorney fees, liabilities or other
losses that may be asserted by any person or entity, and that arise out of or are made in connection
with the acts or omissions relating to the performance of any duty, obligation, or work hereunder.
The obligation to indemnify shall be effective and shall extend to all such claims and losses, in their
entirety, even when such claims or losses arise from the comparative negligence of the County, its
officers, and employees. However, this indemnity will not extend to any claims or losses arising out
of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its officers and employees.
The preceding paragraph applies to any theory of recovery relating to said act or omission by the
Contractor, or its agents, employees, or other independent contractors directly responsible to
Contractor, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Violation of statute, ordinance, or regulation.
2. Professional malpractice.
3. Willful, intentional or other wrongful acts, or failures to act.
4. Negligence or recklessness.
5. Furnishing of defective or dangerous products.
6. Premises liability.
7. Strict liability.
159
C-5-5
8. Inverse condemnation.
9. Violation of civil rights.
10. Violation of any federal or state statute, regulation, or ruling resulting in a determination by
the Internal Revenue Service, California Franchise Tax Board or any other California public
entity responsible for collecting payroll taxes, when the Contractor is not an independent
contractor.
It is the intent of the parties to provide RTA the fullest indemnification, defense, and "hold harmless"
rights allowed under the law. If any word(s) contained herein are deemed by a court to be in
contravention of applicable law, said word(s) shall be severed from this contract and the remaining
language shall be given full force and effect
X. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
RTA reserves the right to terminate this agreement for convenience, without cause, by the Executive
Director at the instruction of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, on one week written notice.
XI. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The effective date of this agreement shall be May 2, 2012. The term of the agreement shall be for the
entire fiscal year 2012/2013 (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013), with the option of an extension of the
contract. RTA shall contact the Contractor two months prior to the end of each fiscal year to discuss
potential contract modifications for the upcoming year.
XII. NOTICES
All notices and communications with respect to this Agreement shall be in writing and served as
follows:
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority CONTRACTOR
179 Cross Street, Ste. A AGP Video
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1600 Preston Lane
Attn: RTA Executive Director Morro Bay, CA 93442
Attn: Steve Mathieu and Nancy Castle
XIII. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,
and hereby promises to comply with the provision on contractor agreements contained in
Presidential Executive Order Number 11246.
IX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATION
This Contract supersedes all previous contracts and constitutes the entire understanding or the
parties hereto. Contractor shall be entitled to no other benefits than those specified herein. No
changes, amendments or alterations shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties.
Contractor specifically acknowledges that in entering into and executing this Contract, Contractor
relies solely upon the provisions contained in this Contract and no others.
XV. NON-ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
Inasmuch as this Contract is intended to secure the specialized services of the Contractor,
Contractor may not assign, transfer, delegate or sublet any interest therein without the prior written
consent of County and any such assignment, transfer, delegation or sublease without the County's
prior written consent shall be considered null and void.
XVI. COVENANT
This Contract has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity,
enforceability and interpretation of any of the clauses of this Contract shall be determined and
governed by the laws of the State of California. All duties and obligations of the parties created
hereunder are performable in San Luis Obispo County and such County shall be the venue for any
160
C-5-6
action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this
Contract.
XVII. ENFORCEABILITY
If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain
in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.
XVIII. WARRANTY OF CONTRACTOR
Contractor warrants that Contractor and each of the personnel employed or otherwise retained by
Contractor are properly certified and licensed under the laws and regulations of the State of
California to provide the special services herein agreed to.
IXX. RECORDS
a. Contractor shall keep complete and accurate records for the services performed pursuant to
this Contract and any records required by law or government regulation and shall make such
records available to County upon request.
b. Contractor shall assure the confidentiality of any records that are required by law to be so
maintained.
c. Contractor shall prepare and forward such additional or supplementary records as County may
reasonably request.
ACCEPTED BY:
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Fred Strong, President Date
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
179 Cross Street, Ste. A., San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 781-4472
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Nancy Castle Date
AGP Video
1600 Preston Lane, Morro Bay, CA 93442 (805) 772-2715
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
___________________________________________________ ____________________
Timothy McNulty Date
RTA Legal Counsel
161
C-6-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2, 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: C-6
TOPIC: Resolution Authorizing FTA Section 5311 Funding
ACTION: Approve Resolution
PRESENTED BY: Omar McPherson, Grants Administrator
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Beginning in fiscal year 2003/04, SLOCOG and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (RTA) agreed to program all federal funding from the FTA 5311 Program to
RTA. In exchange, SLOCOG programs a similar amount of Transportation Development
Act (TDA) funds for rural transit operators.
In connection with the exchange program, RTA must submit an annual grant application
to the FTA for the 5311 funds. The grant application must include a resolution, approved
by the RTA Board, authorizing submittal of the grant application and authorizing the
Executive Director to execute and file all assurances and any other documentation
required by the FTA.
Once approved, the attached resolutions will become part of the grant application for
FTA 5311 funding for the 2012/13 fiscal year.
162
C-6-2
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL FUNDING UNDER FTA SECTION 5311 (49 U.S.C.
SECTION 5311) WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation is authorized to make grants to states through
the Federal Transit Administration to support operating assistance projects for non-urbanized public
transportation systems under Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act (FTA C 9040.1F); and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Department) has been designated by the
Governor of the State of California to administer Section 5311 grants for transportation
projects for the general public for the rural transit and intercity bus; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) desires to apply for said financial
assistance to permit operation of service in San Luis Obispo County; and
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority has, to the maximum extent feasible,
coordinated with other transportation providers and users in the region (including social service agencies).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority does hereby authorize the Executive Director, to file and execute applications on behalf
of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority with the Department to aid in the financing of
capital/operating assistance projects pursuant to Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act (FTA C
9040.1F), as amended.
That Executive Director is authorized to execute and file all certification of assurances, contracts or
agreements or any other document required by the Department.
That Executive Director is authorized to provide additional information as the Department may require in
connection with the application for the Section 5311 projects.
That Executive Director is authorized to submit and approve request for reimbursement of funds from the
Department for the Section 5311 project(s).
Upon motion of Director ____________, seconded by Director _____________, and on the following roll
call, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
The foregoing resolution is hereby passed and adopted by the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, at a regular meeting of said Board of Directors
held on the 2nd day of May, 2012.
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FTA SECTION 5311 PROJECT OPERATING ASSISTANCE APPLICATION
163
C-6-3
___________________________________
Fred Strong
President of the RTA Board
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Geoff Straw
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
By: ______________________________
Timothy McNulty
RTA Counsel
Dated: ______________________
(Original signature in BLUE ink)
164
C-7-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2 , 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: C-7
TOPIC: 5307 Grant Administration
ACTION: Review and Approve
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw
Executive Director
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ECHO-Web Authorization and
Certification form for Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to provide SLORTA
representative access to ECHO-Web system for
fund reimbursement.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) has served as the FTA Section 5307
grantee for the last four years on behalf of the City of Atascadero and the City of Paso
Robles. Prior to RTA assuming these responsibilities, the designated grantee was the
City of Paso Robles.
For RTA to properly administer FTA Section 5307 grants on behalf of the City of
Atascadero and the City of Paso Robles, FTA requires RTA to have access to ECHO-
Web system for fund reimbursement. Due to my recent appointment as RTA Executive
Director, we need an ECHO-Web Authorization and Certification form approved by the
Board, as presented in the attachment.
With the increasing population in south San Luis Obispo County and the recent
completion of the 2010 Census, it is likely that RTA will be required to fulfill these
responsibilities on behalf of the anticipated designation of the Arroyo Grande – Grover
Beach Urbanized Area. Once that designation is formally executed, RTA staff will seek
both the RTA Board and South County Area Transit Board’s approval to serve as the
designated grantee for that area, as well.
165
16
6
C-8-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
May 2 , 2012
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: C-8
TOPIC: Resolution Authorizing RTA Executive
Director, Certified Financial Officer or
Grants Manager to execute for and on
behalf of RTA for State Proposition 1B
Safety & Security Funds.
ACTION: Approve
PRESENTED BY: Geoff Straw, Executive Director
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution
Proposition 1B was passed in November 2006 by California voters. Based on statewide
estimates, approximately $12.1 million will be apportioned to San Luis Obispo County
for transit capital projects over the next five years. RTA is an eligible recipient of this
funding.
In FY12 RTA applied for and was awarded $200,000 in Proposition 1B Safety and
Security Funds as Phase 2 of 3 for our Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) project,
which includes an enhanced two-way radio system, a GPS-based automatic vehicle
location system, automatic passenger counter system, and on-bus security camera
systems. However, the Governor’s Office of California Emergency Management Agency
(CALEMA) requires the attached Authorizing Agent Signature Authority and Governing
Body Resolution in order to execute funding agreements.
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions authorizing the RTA Executive
Director, Chief Financial Officer and Grants Manager to execute for and on behalf
of RTA, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance
provided by the Governor’s Office of CALEMA.
167
179 Cross Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-4472 Fax (805) 781-1291
www.slorta.org
C-8-2
Authorized Agent Signature Authority
2011-12 Transit System Safety, Security and
Disaster Response Account Program
AS THE ________President_______________________________________________________
(Chief Executive Officer / Director / President / Secretary)
OF THE _______San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)______________________
(Name of State Organization)
I hereby authorize the following individual(s) to execute for and on behalf of the named state
organization, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state financial assistance
provided by the California Emergency Management Agency.
____Geoff Straw, Executive Director___________________________________________ , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
____Omar S. McPherson, Grants Manager ___________________________________ , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
____Tania Arnold, Chief Financial Officer_______________________________________ .
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
Signed and approved this __2nd__day of __May__, 2012.
__________________________________________________________
(Signature)
168
179 Cross Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-4472 Fax (805) 781-1291
www.slorta.org
C-8-3
Governing Body Resolution
2011-12 Transit System Safety, Security and
Disaster Response Account Program
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE _San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority Board of Directors
(Governing Body)
OF THE __San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority___________________________ THAT
(Name of Applicant)
___Geoff Straw, Executive Director__________________________________________ , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
___Omar S. McPherson, Grants Manager______________________________________ , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
___Tania Arnold, Chief Financial Officer______________________________________ ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established under the laws
of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the
California Emergency Management Agency.
Passed and approved this _2nd _ day of _May_, 2012.
Certification
I, _Fred Strong_________________________________________________, duly appointed and
(Name)
__President_________________ of the __RTA Board of Directors _____________________
(Title) (Governing Body)
do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by
the __RTA Board of Directors____________ of the ____RTA_____________________ on the
(Governing body) (Name of Applicant)
_____2nd _________________ day of, ___May_______________________________, 20_12_____ .
__President of the RTA Board_________________
(Official Position)
__________________________________________
(Signature)
__May 2, 2012________________________(Date)
169
Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Census Data Affiliate
Service Authority for Expressways and Freeways
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Grover Beach
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County
Ronald De Carli, Executive Director
1150 Osos St. Suite 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel. (805) 781-4219 Fax (805) 781-5703
E-mail: slocog@slocog.org Internet: www.slocog.org
May 25, 2012
Dear Chairmen Boxer and Mica and Ranking Committee Members Inhofe and Rahall:
I am writing on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) to thank you for your
enthusiasm in addressing the reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation legislation. We are
also requesting favorable consideration of a small number of critically important provisions that we feel
must be included in the final bill.
We support much of what is included in the Senate bill (S. 1813), including program consolidation,
streamlining project delivery, and improving the planning process. We also support a number of the
provisions included in the House bill (H.R 4348), including designation of MPO’s, the STP funding
formula and 10% set-aside for enhancements. As the committee considers a final bill we respectfully
request the following provisions be included:
1. Preserve the current population threshold for defining Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO)
and current planning procedures. We are very concerned about provisions in MAP-21 that would
eliminate or phase out MPO regions with a population less than 200,000. We are also concerned
that the proposed tiering structure would shift planning and programming responsibilities from
small MPO’s (like ours) to State Departments of Transportation. We believe the best decisions
affecting local and regional planning and programming are those made by local elected officials
who are accountable to the electorate, know their region, and have cooperatively developed
regional vision plans through a comprehensive public participation process. Removing local
decision-making authority from the transportation planning and programming process will take
away the voice of local government and its citizens.
2. Preserve essential programs, including Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to
Schools. It is critical to ensure that funding be available for projects that improve safety and
mobility for bicycling and walking. We appreciate inclusion of Transportation Enhancement (TE)
and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs as eligible uses of Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) “Additional Activities” funds.
170
We request the following provision be included in the final bill to clarify MPO eligibility for CMAQ
funding: “All areas are eligible for this source and that funds are not restricted to non-attainment
or maintenance areas or areas covered by an MPO”.
3. Maintain 15% set-aside of dedicated funding for off-system local bridges. We strongly urge you to
retain language in S. 1813 that would maintain a dedicated Federal funding stream for off-system
(local) bridges. Without dedicated funding for these bridges, we are extremely concerned that
maintenance, repair and capital projects will be unable to effectively compete against other state
highway bridge projects.
4. Provide dedicated funding for the High-Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Program: We strongly urge you
to maintain current law in SAFETEA-LU that provides dedicated funding for this program. As you
know this program was created to provide Federal assistance for safety improvements on rural
two-lane roads that are not otherwise eligible for state or Federal funding. The performance
standard in MAP-21 sets an unreasonable high requirement for funding.
5. Continue existing Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding allocation method. We strongly
urge you to retain the existing formula in SAFETEA-LU (62.5% to MPOs, 37.5% to state) versus
the formula proposed in MAP-21 (50% to MPOs, 50% to state). The proposed change shifts
programming and funding from MPOs responsible for the entire transportation system to State
Departments of Transportation that have responsibility which is limited to state highways.
6. Adopt environmental streamlining provisions that expedite project delivery while maintaining
appropriate environmental safeguards and local participation. W e urge the Committee to support
the streaming provisions in MAP-21. We also urge the Committee to include Section 611 of H.R
4348 as follows “This section is to establish the authority and provide procedures for achieving
integrated planning and environmental review processes to enable statewide and metropolitan
planning processes to more effectively serve as the foundation for project decisions, foster better
decision making, reduce duplication in work, & avoid delays in transportation improvements”.
The decisions you are making are critical to the economic recovery of our communities and the nation
as a whole. MPO’s are an important part of insuring the system meets the changing needs of
communities while protecting the environment, connecting job opportunities, and promoting the safe
and equitable development of transportation plans and improvements.
We request Congress continue to empower local elected officials and retain and enhance Metropolitan
Planning and Programing provisions.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
Please do not hesitate to have your staff contact us with any questions or needed clarifications at 805-
781-5724.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. De Carli
Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
171
172
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 18, 2012
To: Eliane Wilson, SLOCOG
From: Matt Haynes, PE, AICP, Franziska Church, AICP, Monica Altmaier, Fehr & Peers
Gordon Shaw, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc
Subject: SLOCOG BRT Applications Study - Background Document Review
SJ11-1310
Project Purpose and Objectives
Population and employment growth in the San Luis Obispo County area has put pressure on the
County’s transportation system and resulted in the need to strategically plan for future
transportation investments. In addition to population and employment growth, the general
population in the county is aging as well. This has meant that transit services are becoming even
more important as a way for aging residents to get around. A growing student population has
also increased the need for County transit services as higher costs of living restrict private
automobile access. Against this backdrop, current economic conditions have meant that there is
less funding to provide better service while new funding opportunities are limited.
SLOCOG has been proactive in anticipating the transit needs in the county and has embarked on
a series of studies to better improve local and regional transit service and has initiated a study to
evaluate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) opportunities along the US 101 corridor.
This purpose of the Regional BRT Applications study will be to further advance past transit
planning work that has been occurring in the County and provide an assessment of the most
effective BRT strategies that can be pursued along the US 101 corridor at interchanges and along
streets serving these interchanges. Specifically, the goal will be to identify BRT elements that are
most suitable for the area, provide a ranking of their effectiveness and propose a timeline for
integrating these elements into future projects and programs.
The key project objectives are:
Streamline regional transit service in San Luis Obispo County
Attract new transit riders in the County
Evaluate most cost-effective transit improvements in order to develop a prioritized
implementation plan
173
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 2 of 26
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of relevant studies for BRT in San Luis
Obispo County. These studies are broken up into three categories, including:
1) Caltrans Policy Documents
2) Regional and Countywide Studies, and
3) Evaluation and Implementation Materials.
Within each category, the relevant studies and policy documents are summarized to assess key
findings applicable to this project.
Utilization of highway bus routes has been around since the early 1950s. According to the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report, “Bus Stops for Freeway Operations” (1971),
these facilities provide access to fast transit service in areas where other transit alternatives
consist of time consuming off-expressway travel. To date, the San Luis Obispo region has
evaluated several options to improve their transit system to accommodate their growin g
population and employment. The San Luis Obispo region values transit service as an important
way to support accessibility for their diverse population. These efforts are reflected in the series
of studies conducted to evaluate methods to better improve local and regional transit service.
This memorandum will serve to summarize the work that has been occurring to date within the
County and at the statewide level.
These studies highlight the benefits and challenges of Bus on Shoulder (BOS) systems, including
improving system ridership and efficiency with lower capital costs and more flexibility. A large
challenge is that there is currently no nationally recognized or consistent criteria for BOS; without
these systems being included in the California Vehicle Code, any program will need to go through
an experimentation process. The Decision Document (2008) recommends that legislation be
passed to amend the California Vehicle Code to allow for BOS in certain circumstances.
Summaries for the following documents are included in this memorandum:
Caltrans Policy Documents
2007 Caltrans Policy on BRT Implementation Support on California’s Highway System
2008 Deputy Directive 98, Integrating Bus Rapid Transit into State Facilities
2008 Decision Document: Authority for Use of Freeway Shoulders by Transit Buses
2008 Bus on Shoulder Concept Study correspondence with Caltrans District 5
2009 Statewide BRT project inventory
2011 South County BRT Assessment correspondence with Caltrans District 5
Regional Studies
174
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 3 of 26
1998 Express Bus Stop Study (SLOCOG, RTA, Caltrans District 5)
2006 SLOCOG BRT Feasibility Study (SLOCOG)
2010 Regional Transit Authority Short Range Transit Plan (Prepared by Majic Consulting
for RTA)
2012 North County Transit Plan (Prepared by Nelson\Nygaard for SLOCOG)
2011 South County Transit Plan- BRT Assessment (Prepared by LSC Transportation
Consultants for SLOCOG)
2011/12 San Luis Obispo Coordinated Transit Center Study (Prepared by Dokken
Engineering with LSC Transportation)
Evaluation and Implementation
2008 Bus On Shoulder Concept Study (Jessica Berry, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Thesis)
Standards/ Guidelines Review for Marin County Bus Stops on US 101
Preferential Bus Treatment in San Luis Obispo (Professor Eugene Jud’s Cal Poly San Luis
Obispo Public Transportation Class Project Fall 2011)
CALTRANS POLICY
This section summarizes the major state-wide efforts relating to BRT policy and implementation.
Caltrans recognizes and supports BRT as a solution to increase capacity and reduce traveler delay.
However, policies would need to be developed and revised to allow such facilities on US 101.
Furthermore, procedures and standards would need to be put in place to guide development of
such facilities. Caltrans does not currently see these facilities as feasible alternatives on US 101 in
San Luis Obispo County but supports further evaluation of planning and reviewing alternatives.
1. Caltrans Policy on BRT Implementation Support on California’s Highway System (2007)
Summary
This is a policy document that is consistent with existing directives to reach context-sensitive
solutions through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving all stakeholders in the
development of transportation infrastructure.
Key Findings
Caltrans recognizes and supports the concept and implementation of Bus Rapid Transit as a
potentially cost-effective strategy to maximize people throughput, reduce traveler delay, increase
capacity, and foster energy savings on the California State Highway System (SHS), as well as other
roadway systems. The intent of DP 27 is to clearly establish a corporate expectation for
conducting business between Caltrans and local BRT agencies. DP 27 summarizes the various
roles internal to Caltrans that should foster the integration of BRT on SHS.
2. Deputy Directive 98: Integrating Bus Rapid Transit into State Facilities(2008)
175
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 4 of 26
Summary
This is a policy document that outlines Caltrans’ supports for the integration of Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) projects and operations on the California State Highway System (SHS) where most effective,
through partnerships with BRT stakeholders.
Key Findings
The document lays out responsibilities for relevant Deputy Directors, District Directors, and
Division Chiefs, Deputy District Directors, and all employees for the integration of BRT systems
into SHS as appropriate. These responsibilities range from developing/maintaining/revising
policies, procedures, standards, guidance, and manual related to planning, reviewing, and
integrating BRT with other modes on the SHS to internal Caltrans coordination responsibilities
3. Decision Document: Authority for Use of Freeway Shoulders by Transit Buses (2008)
Summary
Use of shoulders for anything other than emergency vehicles is currently prohibited in California.
Without legislation, any project will need to be a pilot project. This memorandum illustrates the
support to pursue legislation to modify vehicle code to support the use of freeway shoulders by
transit buses to facilitate bus movement by bypassing congested areas. Bus use of shoulders to
bypass congestion has been in operation for more than ten years in other parts of the U.S. The
decision document outlines the criteria to address safety, operations, and maintenance of these
facilities.
Key Findings
The fiscal impact of these facilities includes increased maintenance such as drainage facilities or
repaving and increased need for enforcement. Impacts to policies include the need to revise the
Highway Design Manual. There are several risks involved with such a legislation, including
increased potential for tort liability, emergency vehicle conflicts, and increasing collisions due to
speed differentials. Their recommended action is to allow transit buses to use freeway shoulders
when they are 12 feet wide, have improved shoulders for increased loading, adjusted drainage
facilities, adjust cross slope, and establish freeway service patrols.
4. Statewide BRT Project Inventory (2009)
Summary
This is a spreadsheet that summarizes statewide BRT projects. Information presented (as available)
include:
District,
176
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 5 of 26
County,
Project Name,
Status (Planned, Operational, or Future) and Year
Capitol Cost
Project Agency
Route Miles
Bus Features (Mixed Flow, Low Floors, Signal Priority, Enhanced Doors, Smart Card
Reader, On/Off Board Collection, Pre/On-Board, cash & Passes
Description
Contact
County
Route,
Begin Post Mile
End Post Mile
The spreadsheet includes 37 projects, including mention of a potential future project in San Luis
Obispo County, but with no other project information available.
Key Findings
This document will be relevant to compare BRT systems on State Highways that have similar
characteristics as the one proposed on US 101. Many of the existing BRT systems on State
Highways operate on State Routes/major arterials, such El Camino Real (SR 82).
5. South County BRT Assessment Correspondence with Caltrans District 5 (2011)
Summary
This letter represents the Caltrans response to the SLOCOG “South County BRT Assessment”,
which is summarized in the next section on Regional and Countywide Plans. Caltrans supports
the goal of providing efficient, direct and dependable transit service on US 101. Transit efficiency
on the local road system is a primary concern, suggesting that BRT efficiencies on the local road
system be emphasized over US 101 interchange improvement (i.e. transit signal priority at local
intersections). Secondly, building a complete interconnected network will be challenging for US
101, thus reducing the opportunity to get consistent and predicable travel times.
Key Findings
The current transit operations do not justify major change to US 101 interchanges. The letter
recommends future efforts evaluate potential investments in transit and park and ride facilities.
The letter also includes an attachment providing detailed Caltrans comments. They recommend
the need to assess maintenance of the system. Their specific design recommendations include:
177
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 6 of 26
Locating bus shelter 30 feet from edge of traveled way
Use of 100 foot long acceleration lanes
Keeping sidewalks away from highway ramps.
Furthermore, Caltrans does not currently envision any new park and ride facilities on state
property due to maintenance and liability concerns.
6. Bus on Shoulder Concept Study Correspondence with Caltrans District 5 (2008)
Summary
This letter represents Caltrans’ response to the “Bus on Shoulder Concept Study”, summarized in
the next section. They recognize BOS one of several strategies to maximize traveler throughput,
reduce traveler delays, and increase capacity. Incorporating BRT strategies on the local roadway
system, such as traffic signal priority lanes, can also improve transit efficiency.
Key Findings
A full comprehensive BRT study should be conducted to evaluate all alternatives since a 10 foot
shoulder is the minimum to accommodate BOS and 12 feet around structures. The State Highway
Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) funds are constrained and BOS may not be an
appropriate use of funds as it essentially helps to complete a discontinuous system over an
uncertain timeframe.
178
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 7 of 26
REGIONAL AND COUNTYWIDE PLANS
This section summarizes the studies as they relate to region-wide efforts. In order to make
express transit a competitive form of transportation in San Luis Obispo County, it needs to be
convenient, an efficient use of time, and interconnected to the surrounding transportation system.
According to the Regional Transit Authority’s Short Range Transit Plan (2010), between the years
of 2000 and 2025, San Luis Obispo County’s population is expected to grow 41 percent, with a
majority of development occurring outside a one-quarter mile radius of a transit route. The
demand for an express transit system will support this growing population.
While there has been past discussion to pursue legislation to modify the vehicle code to support
the use of freeway shoulders by transit buses, concerns from Caltrans remain. These concerns
relate to sight distance, merging, potential for rear end collisions and pedestrian safety on
highway on/off ramps. As discussed in more detail below, full (separated) BRT is not appropriate
for SLO County, mainly due to the demographic characteristics.
Consequently, guidelines are needed for express bus stops to help local and regional services
evaluate how to best accommodate express bus services. Elements of BRT systems could be
implemented into the existing express bus transit system to improve its operations in the short-
term. These improvements include expanding express bus service using some of the “rapid”
characteristics of BRT such as limited stops, stops that minimize the need for travel on local
streets, and more efficient fare collection systems. For the longer term, another BRT feasibility
study should be conducted to determine if changes in demographics are trending to more
favorable conditions for BRT.
1. Express Bus Stop Study (1998)
Summary
Express bus service is a type of fixed route transit service designed to provide faster service to a
select number of destinations by not serving all areas near the route. This study evaluated the
potential for expanding express bus service primarily in northern San Luis Obispo County along
the US 101 corridor between San Luis Obispo and San Miguel. Consideration was also given to
other planned or existing freeway corridors in the county.
In order to be successful, express bus service should be competitive in convenience, pricing and
travel time to carpooling or driving alone. Elements which would encourage commuters to ride
express bus service include:
Convenient and safe local transit, bike, pedestrian and auto connections to/from the express
bus service on both ends of the trip.
No out of direction travel from residence to reach the express bus stop.
179
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 8 of 26
Short distance between park and ride lot/ local transit connection and the express bus stop,
particularly for the commute to work.
Express bus service should have limited travel time on local streets
There are four different express bus routing options:
Express with remote stops – Bus primarily travels on freeway, stops located on local streets.
Local to express – The morning trip begins as local service and completes trip in a business
district via the freeway. A park and ride lot is typically the last stop prior to the route terminus.
Freeway express with local system support – The bus route primarily runs on the freeway.
Express bus stops are located on on/off ramps or adjacent to the mainline and near a park
and ride with connections to local transit.
Express combination – Combination of all three routing types.
There are three types of express bus stop configurations:
Remote location – Examples include park and ride lots; low cost but longer travel time
Ramp/street level – On ramp/off ramp; low to moderate cost; shorter travel time; potential for
design issues for pedestrian access, merging etc.
Mainline/freeway level – On highway shoulder; significant time savings; higher costs and
design issues.
Key Findings
An express bus stop screening and selection process was developed to evaluate potential sites in
North County. Criteria used in the evaluation included: ridership demand, park and ride lot design
and connectivity, accessibility/efficiency for express bus, cost effectiveness, safety/security.
Thirteen express bus stop configurations were evaluated in eight different locations in North
County:
Niblick Road and Spring Street
Las Tablas Road and US 101
Templeton Community Park
Vineyard Drive and US 101
Atascadero City Hall
Curbaril Road and US 101
Santa Rosa Road and US 101
Santa Barbara Road and US 101.
Due to concerns (particularly from Caltrans) about sight distance, merging, potential for rear end
collisions and pedestrian safety on highway on/off ramps, it was determined that further
engineering evaluation would be required before final site selection could take place. The study
recommended developing guidelines for express bus stops, consider/incorporate express bus
180
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 9 of 26
service in PSR’s, RTPs and transit plans, and evaluate ways local and regional services could
accommodate express bus service.
2. Regional Transit Authority Short Range Transit Plan (2010)
Summary
RTA serves three primary corridors in San Luis Obispo County: North County, South County and
North Coast. Route 9 serves the North County Corridor along US 101 between San Luis Obispo
and Paso Robles. This corridor has the largest population base.
Route 10 serves the South County Corridor along US 101
between San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria in Santa Barbara
County. A higher proportion of Route 10 passengers use RTA
for commuting purposes to full-time jobs and the route has
experienced a stronger increase in ridership. The North Coast
corridor is served by Route 12 A and 12 B1 along Highway 1 as
far as San Simeon. The document presents a thorough
overview of other recent planning efforts as well as a detailed
evaluation of RTAs services. This Short Range Transit Plan
presents the most viable service plan for RTA routes along with
service options which emphasize regional service and minimize
local service. A five year capital and financial plan is also
presented.
Key Findings
Between 2000 and 2025, San Luis Obispo County’s population is expected to grow 41 percent.
Recent population growth has occurred in the unincorporated areas of the County. The majority
of new developments are occurring outside a one-
quarter mile radius of a transit route. In comparison
to peer counties, San Luis Obispo County has a shorter
commute time, higher median household income,
lower unemployment and lower population density.
The public participation effort revealed passenger
dissatisfaction with RTA on-time performance. Routes
9 and 10 travel along the US 101 corridor and
therefore have the greatest relevance to this study.
Route 9 – On weekday afternoons, two express trips
travel between the SLO Government Center and the
1 Route 12 A and 12 B have since been replaced by Routes 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in Aug ust 2011.
181
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 10 of 26
Paso Robles train station for a total trip time of 53 minutes (bypass Santa Margarita) as opposed
to the regular trip time of 1 hour and 7 minutes. Two semi-express trips (eliminate stop at Cal
Poly campus) operate in the northbound direction. Three express trips occur in the mornings in
the south bound direction. Route 9 operates with less frequency and during a shorter daily span
of service on weekends.
Route 9 Recommended Service Plan - Limit Cal Poly stops to one. Maintain service along El Camino
Real, however, consider reducing number of stops. The regional option is to change all regular
runs into express runs with limited local service.
Route 10 – Route 10 runs between the SLO Government Center and the Santa Maria Transit
Center. The route travels south on US 101 from San Luis Obispo to the SCAT transfer center at the
Pismo Beach Prime Outlets. The route makes two stops in Arroyo Grande before getting back on
US 101 to Santa Maria. Two express trips have limited service in San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach
and Santa Maria. Route 10 operates with less frequency and during a shorter daily span of service
on weekends.
Route 10 Recommended Service Plan – The only significant change to this route is the elimination
of the stop at the Santa Maria Transit Center. The regional option would also eliminate stops at
the SLO Amtrak Station and SLO Greyhound Station as these stops are served by SLO Transit.
3. SLOCOG BRT Feasibility Study (2006)
Summary
This study provides a thorough overview of Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) operations and how they relate to other similar transit
systems (e.g. traditional buses, light rail). The study discusses
the different elements of BRT systems and how they compare
to other types of transit systems. These include running
ways, stations, vehicles, fare collection, intelligent
transportation systems, and service/operating plans. The
study also provides a discussion on alternatives to BRT
including regular transit, express buses, carpooling,
vanpooling, and light rail. The study continues with case
studies of successful BRT systems in Eugene, Oregon;
Cleveland, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; and Los Angeles,
California. These particular cities were chosen to compare
how BRT systems function in medium-size and large cities.
The study notes that all of these case study cities have more
favorable demographic characteristics for BRT than SLO County.
182
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 11 of 26
Key Findings
The 2006 BRT Feasibility Study concludes that full (separated) BRT is not appropriate for SLO
County in 2006. This is mainly due to the demographic characteristics of SLO County. Compared
to the case study locations, SLO County has a lower total population, lower population density,
and low usage on existing transit services. It is also noted that the population centers that would
be served by the BRT system are “sprawled” with a low proportion of the population that would
be within walking distance from any one stop BRT station location. Increasing the number of
stops to a BRT corridor can quickly deteriorate the “rapid” characteristic of BRT. This issue could
be mitigated by ensuring that the local transit route would provide for convenient transfers. This
study concludes that a full BRT system would not be anticipated to have a high enough level of
use to justify costs.
The study recommends that elements of BRT systems could be implemented into the existing
express bus transit system to improve its operations in the short-term. These improvements
include expanding express bus service using some of the “rapid” characteristics of BRT such as
limited stops, stops that minimize the need for travel on local streets, and more efficient fare
collection systems. Ridership could also be increased by adding amenities to stops, improving
vehicles to provide quicker ingress/egress, and providing for efficient transfers to existing local
transit routes.
For the longer term, the study suggests conducting another BRT feasibility study ten years out to
determine if changes in demographics are trending to more favorable conditions for BRT. It is
also noted that “incorporating express bus stops into future interchange Project Study Reports
(PSR’s) or other applicable engineering studies along the Route 101 corridor will provide means for
future express service throughout the County, as well as paving the way for future BRT stops .” If US
101 is widened to six lanes, designating the additional lane as a peak commuter period HOV lane
could improve express bus and possible future BRT operations.
4. South County Transit Plan- BRT Assessment (2011)
Summary
The South County Short Range Transit Plan is a five year transit
plan for the South County Area Transit (SCAT) program, which
serves the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County, focusing
on the Five Cities area (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano,
Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach), as well as Avila Beach. The plan
begins with a review of demographics and commute patterns
and an analysis of SCAT services. One chapter explores BRT
concepts and compares South County to other areas with
183
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 12 of 26
successful BRT systems. The primary focus of the plan is to make specific recommendations abou t
SCAT services, institutional structure and marketing strategies for the next five years.
The report provides potential conceptual BRT improvements for the following locations:
Spyglass Drive
Prime Outlets/ 4th Street
Halcyon Park-and-Ride
Los Berros Road/ Thompson Road
Willow Road
West Tefft Street
Key Findings
Much of the South County area economy is based on tourism. Although the South County
population is fairly transit dependent, the largest transit dependent groups are youth and elderly.
Census data demonstrates that only 0.2 percent of South County residents commute on public
transit. Roughly 70 percent of residents have a commute time of less than 25 minutes. These
factors make BRT a less attractive option for South County residents. However, as part of the
public outreach process, a group of employees of Avila Beach businesses requested commuter
service to Avilla Beach from the Five Cities areas.
Chapter 11 of the document provides an overview of successful BRT systems in Los Angeles,
Alameda County, Santa Clara, San Francisco and
Sacramento as well as a description of BRT elements
such as traffic signal priority and “jump-queue
lanes”. In comparing these BRT service areas with
South County communities, it was found that the
number of employees per acre and dwelling units
per acre and presence of traffic congestion on
adjacent roadways in South County communities
was below recommended thresholds for BRT service.
However, the existing configuration of US 101
on/off ramps and local streets results in longer
travel time and distance for RTA Route 10 to pick up
passengers in South County. Locating RTA Route 10 bus stops on US 101 on-ramps with nearby
connections provided by SCAT would solve this issue, particularly at the Spyglass Road
interchange and the area around the Pismo Factory Outlets center. Golden Gate Transit in Marin
County has been successful with freeway on/off ramp bus stops. In Washington State, the SR 520
corridor contains short bus only lanes adjacent to the freeway. Both systems connect to park and
ride lots. In contrast to findings from the 1998 Express Bus Stop study, Caltrans has implemented
new policies to support the implementation of BRT on the state highway.
184
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 13 of 26
The study concluded that although South County would benefit from improved connections
between SCAT local routes and RTA regional services on US 101 in the form of on-freeway bus
stops, the cost of large-scale modifications to US 101 interchanges to accommodate BRT and
freeway bus stops outweighs the benefits. However, relocation of bus stops and limited
improvements to existing ramps, acceleration / deceleration and intersections may be warranted.
Any future US 101 interchange projects should incorporate BRT type strategies that may speed
RTA Route 10 operations.
5. San Luis Obispo Coordinated Transit Center Study (2011/12)
Summary
This Technical Memorandum reviews conceptual
design alternatives for a new downtown transit
center in San Luis Obispo. The purpose of the
transit center is to provide a transfer location for
San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit), San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and other
services. Needs analysis in other technical
memorandums indicated that the transit center
building should be 5,200 square feet, include space for passenger amenities and 14 bus bays in
the short term and 16 in the long term. Two locations have been identified as potential sites: an
upgrade of the existing site on Osos Street between Monterey Street and Mill Street, or a new
location on Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets. Multiple site concepts were
developed and outlined in Technical Memorandum 5, designed to accommodate up to 16 buses
at a time.
Key Findings
Differences between the Higuera Street concept alternatives are:
Lane configurations on Higuera Street. Some options would maintain the current one-way
southwest-bound operation of Higuera Street, while others would convert it to two-way
operation.
Street parking configuration
Whether or not the required 16 bus bays can be accommodated
Bus ingress/egress
The maximum distance staff and transit users must walk to make a transfer
Lots need to be acquired and demolition required for project
Possible square footage of transit center and passenger amenities (shelter etc.)
Proposed nearby traffic calming and pedestrian facilities for safety
Differences in the Osos Street concept alternatives include:
185
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 14 of 26
The exact location of the new transit center
On-street parking configuration
How many existing bus bays will remain
Possible square footage of transit center and passenger amenities (shelter etc.)
The total number of bus bays accommodated
The maximum distance staff and transit users must walk to make a transfer
Whether bus bays are provided along Mill Street
The key difference between these options with regards to the current US 101 BRT study is the
differences in potential ingress and egress routes for the various bus routes. For instance, some
of the Higuera options would require all buses to enter via Toro Street, while others would also
allow buses to enter from Santa Rosa Street.
6. North County Transit Plan (2012)
Summary
The North County Transit Plan, led by SLOCOG as well as the City of Atascadero, City of Paso
Robles, and the San Luis Obispo RTA, provides a comprehensive evaluation of public
transportation services for the years FY 2012/13 to FY 2018/19.
North County is serviced by three transit providers: RTA operates Route 9 and Atascadero and
Paso Robles provide local services. They serve local, regional, and interregional trips with a range
of transit users, including commuters, transit dependent individuals, college students, and
tourists. The plan provides recommendations for these three agencies to work together to
collaborate, evaluate existing service, and consolidate. The three service plans developed from
the outreach process include:
1. Minor Shift to Express Service- Add peak
period express service on Route 9 but reduce
midday service. Add services to Templeton
and Twin Cities Hospital.
2. Major shift to Express Service- Dramatically
shift resource on Route 9 to express services
and limit regional connections. Add services
to Templeton and Twin Cities Hospital.
3. Consolidated Fixed Route Services under
RTA- A single transit operator in North
County and consolidate services so RTA
Route 9 can provide a single-seat ride to
most North County destinations.
186
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 15 of 26
The focus groups and Committee identified Alternative 3 as the favorable alternative with one
important modification. This version, named “3B”, consolidates the Paso Robles Dial-a-Ride (to be
operated by Runabout).
Key Findings
The three major alternatives evaluated (briefly identified above) include:
Alternative 1- Partial Service Delineation
This alternative shifts regional resources towards faster and more direct services on Highway 101
by primarily altering Route 9. This includes doubling express service on Route 9 compared to
existing conditions, focusing on two timed transfer locations, less frequent midday service, service
to downtown Templeton and Twin Cities Hospital, and more park-and-ride facilities. Alternative 1
is not anticipated to result in an increase in revenue service hours over existing levels. The fixed
route ridership for this alternative is 383,000 or 3.8% higher than existing.
Alternative 2- Focus on Express Service
Alternative 2 further directs Highway 101 corridor resources to express service by shortening the
regional route to operate only between Santa Margarita and San Miguel. In addition to
implementing all of the elements within Alternative 1, Alternative 2 has additional express service,
reduces regional service, and has additional timed transfers. This does not assume an increase in
revenue service hours. The fixed route ridership is estimated to be 391,000 or 6% higher than
existing.
Alternative 3: Consolidated Fixed Route North County Service
Through operating all fixed route transit services in North County through RTA, with the
exception of the two Dial-a-Ride services in Paso Robles and Atascadero, the operational
efficiency increases through eliminating duplicate services. The El Camino Shuttle and Paso
Express Route C would be replaced. Some of the key service features include the North County
regional route, serving as Route 9, but modified to include service to Templeton, Pasada Lane and
Twin Cities Hospital, and Cuesta College. Alternative 3 also includes timed transfers and park-
and-ride facilities. Similar to the other 2 alternatives, there is no increase in revenue service hours.
The fixed route ridership for Alternative 3 is estimated to be 387,000, or approximately 5% higher
than existing fixed route ridership.
All of these alternatives do not include additional express service in North County. With the cost
savings from consolidating fixed route services in North County, resources can be reinvested in
additional services. This could include expanded service hours, providing service on Highway 41
between Atascadero to Morro Bay, and connecting Highway 46 between Paso Robles and
Shandon. The preferred alternative includes revising Alternative 3, the most favorable option, to
consolidate Paso Robles Dial-a-Ride service to operate by Runabout.
North County Population and Ridership Base
187
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 16 of 26
Atascadero and Paso Robles are projected to absorb 75% of North County growth in the next
decade. Growth is expected to occur at a higher rate within the North County compared to the
County as a whole. Atascadero State Hospital, Paso Robles Public Schools, and Atascadero
Unified School District are the three largest employers in the North County.
Surveys were conducted as part of the North County Transit Plan to better assess the needs for
the transit riders. A Ridecheck analysis from May 2011 was done for Paso Express Route A and B,
North County Shuttle, and RTA Route 9. The results provide details on the boarding and alighting,
load summary, and time of day data. Furthermore, the on-board passenger surveys were
administered on the North County Shuttle, Paso Express Routes A and B, and RTA Route 9 in May
2011. Most respondents were between 25- 59 years of
age and had a household income below $10,000. While
the North County Shuttle and Paso Express riders are
mostly students, RTA Route 9 notes they were mostly
full time employed individuals. Most of the survey
North County Shuttle respondents reported traveling to
and from home, school, and work. Respondents also
rated the amenities very high for the North County
Shuttle and Paso Express. The Paso Express had an
overwhelming majority of respondents having left their
home; the other origins include work, school, shopping,
medical/dental. Similarly, Route 9 trip purpose data
shows that most of trip origins noted having left their
place of residents. The Route 9 respondents noted that
the majority of their destinations were to work or home.
Paso Express and Route 9 respondents ranked more
frequent bus service as their highest for desired
services. Paso Express ranked Sunday service second for
desired services where Route 9 respondents ranked
more express bus services as a close second to more frequent bus service.
Organization, Financing, and Implementation
In assessing the organizational structure of the agencies, four alternatives were developed:
1. Status quo with more formalized Coordination- Three separate transit providers with
more specialized coordination and marketing
2. Administrative Consolidations- Consolidate to streamline administrative functions and
RTA serves as lead agency
3. Partial Consolidation- Consolidate all fixed route services plus the Paso Robles Dial-a-
Ride with RTA; all routes would be part of one transit system and local and regional
service could be better integrated. This option was the preferred alternative.
188
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 17 of 26
4. Full Consolidation- Local and regional services would operate under a single agency,
inclusive of fixed route and Dial-a-Ride services.
Priorities for improving services consist of maintaining local preference for service delivery,
improving needs of El Camino Real riders, enhancing express service, improving tourist market
accommodations and customer service. The details of the stakeholder interviews provide insight
into the strengths and weaknesses of the existing services. In order to improve efficiency and cost
effectiveness, the plan provides options for organizational and administrative structures.
The report’s financial plan section compares the cost savings associated with the preferred
alternative and funding sources used to pay for operating and capital costs. The four primary
sources for funding are the 1) FTA Section 5307 funds and Small Transit Intensive Cities, 2) State
Transportation Development Act and State Transit Assistance, 3) Fare revenues, and 4) Cuesta
College. The plan also identifies potential funding sources that can supplement transit service.
Finally, the report includes an implementation plan to summarize next steps within administrative,
service operations, marketing, financial planning, and monitoring efforts. A formal Technical
Committee will first need to be organized in order to help RTA assume the role of day-to-day
operations. Significant internal restructuring and outreach will need to occur before the existing
services are consolidated. Marketing will be critical to inform existing riders about the upcoming
changes. Another critical next step will be to carefully assess the vehicles that will be needed for
the deployment of new services.
189
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 18 of 26
EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This section provides a summary of specific information on the evaluation, design, and feasibility
for implementing BOS, bus stops on freeway ramps or other BRT-related improvements. The “Bus
on Shoulder Concept Study” (2008) provides a specific evaluation to the southern section of San
Luis Obispo County, summarizing the operational characteristics and facility constraints within the
corridor.
1. 2008 Bus On Shoulder Concept Study (South County)
Summary
This study looks at the applicability of integrating Bus Only
Shoulders (BOS) on segments of US 101 in southern San Luis
Obispo County through evaluating case studies in Miami-
Dade Florida, Minneapolis-Twin Cities, Minnesota, and San
Diego, California. The Caltrans response to this analysis was
summarized above in the “Caltrans” section. These systems
range in size of 5 to 230 miles. BOS can increase bus
efficiency and ridership in areas like San Luis Obispo which do
not have a large enough population or employment bases to
support a fully integrated BRT system. BRT is most successful
when the population exceeds 750,000 and employment in
CBD between 50,000- 75,000. The current population of San
Luis Obispo County is at 263, 824. The benefit of BOS rather
than light rail is that it can be added incrementally to reduce
large capital costs. This study evaluates time savings, a strong
performance measure, in addition to the appropriate
infrastructure/ policy environment for implementing BOS.
Key Findings
The criteria applied to the study segment was broken into 1) policy (ie TDM techniques, support
for regional bus integration), 2) infrastructure (ie identify areas to widen 10-12 ft shoulders), and
3) implementation (higher peak hour volumes, LOS, and congestion than other segments). Some
recommendations for SLOCOG include adding a transit shoulder lane option to their RTP and
supporting legislation. Furthermore, the evaluation of automatic vehicle locators (AVL) on buses
could help track performance and determine areas for time savings. There are currently no
nationally recognized or consistent criteria to determine the locations and applications of BOS.
California Vehicle Code does not permit the use of highway shoulders for traversable lanes, but
the 2006 Decision Document recommends supporting legislation to allow this.
190
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 19 of 26
The study segment evaluated in the report connects the City of San Luis Obispo with the Five
Cities area, totaling 65,000 in population. The segment in particular has higher congestion and a
bus that operates as “express” along this corridor. The report demonstrates that the overall width
of the southbound roadway of this segment does not meet the minimum requirement of 36 feet.
The factors evaluated in the study include inside/outside shoulder, depth, grade, drainage, and
frequency of entry/exit ramps. The study inventories each of these factors, in addition to annual
and peak month ADT and peak hour volume.
The study evaluated the operating procedures for BOS, including a summary of features to be
assumed in the system. A total of 10 features were identified, some of which include a transit-
only lane to be used when mainline speeds are below 35 mph, not exceeding speed differential of
15 mph, and identifying hours of operation. The segment should have low LOS, high daily and
peak hour vehicle traffic to justify transit enhancements.
2. Standards/ Guidelines for Marin County Bus Stops US 101
Our team reached out to both Marin Transit and Golden Gate
Transit regarding standards for Marin County bus stops on US
101 and found that they do not have guidelines in place for
the use of bus stops (or bus “pads”). When the bus stops
were originally constructed, they were intended for use by
Greyhound Commuter Services to make freeway bus services
to San Francisco more efficient. They have stayed in place
mostly due to BART not extending to Marin.
As part of the “South Novato Transit Hub Study”, improvements are being evaluated for the
Rowand Boulevard/ Highway 101 and Ignacio/ Bel Marin/ Highway 101 interchanges in Marin
County. The Rowand Boulevard improvements include relocating the westbound local bus stop
near the southbound bus pad to create a better transfer connections and improve pedestrian
safety for the northbound bus pad. The enhancements at the Ignacio/ Bel Marin location include
relocating local bus stops near the southbound bus pad and restriping and widening the
intersection with Enfrente Road. At the northbound bus pad, improvements include relocating
local bus stops to improve transfer opportunities and provide pedestrian enhancements,
including new sidewalk, raised median and raided Pedestrian Island. The Ignaicio/Bel Marin
enhancements recommend the consideration of bus activated signal phasing and queue jumps
phases.
The majority of these existing facilities include a small bus
shelter and seating, such as illustrated in the photos. The
bus pads are generally between one to three miles apart.
The bus pads are designed for efficient boarding and
191
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 20 of 26
alighting. The area to support the bus shelters is small, generally consisting of an island between
the highway off/on ramps and a local street. Furthermore, the facilities typically include enhanced
pedestrian crosswalks, such as zebra striping, and a surface level park-and-ride lot nearby.
The types of off-ramps that service the Marin County bus
pads range in design, including clover leafs (partial and full),
and diamonds. The cloverleafs are frequently more
inaccessible for pedestrians due to their expansive design
and placement of the bus pads. Despite the design of the
off-ramp, all of the bus pads include short deceleration
ramps off the main highway and short acceleration ramps for
time efficiency.
3. Preferential Bus Treatment in San Luis Obispo (2011/12)
Summary
Cal Poly seniors and graduate students analyzed specific corridors throughout the city for their
public transportation course’s final project (CE 424 Fall 2011). During peak PM hours, students
measured bus delays and other problems associated with bus movements, and proposed various
solutions to improve bus efficiency and safety. Improvements ranged from transit signal priority
(TSP) for buses, queues jumps, bus-stop relocations, bus bays, bus only lanes, all-door boarding,
and off-bus fare collection. In addition to transit concerns, the students also addressed
improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Key Findings
The proposed bus treatments are cost-effective
solutions that greatly reduce bus delays, improve
bus travel times, and increase overall efficiency.
The students of the public transportation class
analyzed transit issues and proposed short and
long-term solutions for the following intersections:
Santa Rosa Street and Foothill Boulevard
California Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard
Santa Rosa Street and Mill Street
Santa Rosa Street and Palm Street
Santa Rosa Street and Monterey Street
Santa Rosa Street and Higuera Street
Santa Rosa Street and Marsh Street
Higuera Street and Madonna Road
Higuera Street and South Street
192
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 21 of 26
Higuera Street and South Street/Santa Barbara Street
Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road
Broad Street and Tank Farm Road
CANDIDATE BRT CONCEPTS AND COMPONENTS
The following table provides a summary of BRT stop amenities, design features, and ITS
applications. The list of twelve candidate concepts is broken up into 1) Bus Pad Location and
Amenities, 2) Preferential Treatment- Technical Amenities, and 3) Preferential Treatment- Design
Elements.
193
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Treatments
Improvement Description Image Example Location
Bus Pad Location & Amenities
1 Location: On Ramp/Off Ramp Stop
Locating the bus pad on the on/off ramp is low to moderate in cost and helps shorten
travel time. It may create additional design issues for pedestrian access as these
facilities can be difficult to get to. Bus routing can also be challenging if the ramp
design is indirect for transit vehicles.
Fig Tree Pocket Road in Brisbane, Australia at
Centenary Motorway- Provides an example for
efficient exiting and entering the freeway through
providing a bus-only link between the two ramps so
the vehicle does not fully exit the freeway.
2 Location: Mainline/ Freeway Level Stop
Locating the bus pad on the highway shoulder creates signifi cant time savings by not
forcing the transit vehicle to fully exit the freeway in order to stop at the bus pad.
Depending on the freeway ramp configuration, bus pads can sometimes be located in
between on- and off-ramps. Design considerations include right of way constraints and
merging. It is generally higher in cost compared to the on/off ramp option. Pedestrian
access can sometime be challenging.
Puente Avenue in Baldwin Park, California (I-10)-
This bus pad is on the freeway level which does not
require the vehicle to exit the off-ramp to access the
bus pad.
194
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 23 of 26
3
Location: On Street Express Bus Stop
Buses fully exit the freeway and travel on streets to reach local destinations. They re -
enter the freeway at the next ramp or can even backtrack to the upstream ramp.
Highway 17 Express Route, Scotts Valley,
California (local stop)
4 Freeway Bus Stop Passenger Amenities
There are several examples of amenities to improve bus stop facilities and enhance
passenger comfort by making stations and stops more attractive. Examples include:
glassed walled covered shelters, trash cans, and benches. Intermodal facilities can even
offer shops and restaurants. Platforms should make boarding and alighting faster and
easier.
Mountlake Terrace in Washington (I-5)- This
freeway station includes bus only ramps and a covered
pedestrian bridge providing access to a parking
structure. This location helps reduce collisions with
buses merging with on/off ramps. The facility itself
provides a covered bus shelter and waiting area,
bicycle lockers, and local artwork
5 Off- Vehicle Fare Payment Enabling the system to have payment machines at stations allows passengers to pay
before boarding. This will make the process of boarding buses faster and easier.
New York, Metro Transportation Authority
Preferential Treatment- Technical Amenities
6 ITS: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and
Real-Time Passenger Information (RTPI)
ITS improves the reliability, passenger safety, and operations efficiency by relying on
wireless technology to monitor various components to the transportation system on the
Several agencies in California utilize AVL, including San
195
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 24 of 26
vehicles themselves and at the stations. AVL can provide real time passenger
information, such as to the minute arrival information and delays, through onli ne
tracking and bus monitoring.
Francisco Muni, AC Transit, Los Angeles County Metro,
Community Transit (Snohomish County), and Foothill
Transit.
7 ITS: Transit Signal Priority
Installing a detector will trigger when transit vehicle approaches a signal, sending
information to request accommodating transit through an intersection. It can greatly
help to reduce overall traffic delays by extending the signal green time for buses or by
shortening the signal phase for side streets to minimize bus signal delay. The
maintenance cost is relatively small. TSP can also be combined with dedicated “queue -
jump” lanes (described below) that allow buses to bypass lengthy vehicle queues at
congested intersections.
Some of the agencies within California that utilize TSP
includes: Los Angeles County Metro, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, Sacramento Regional Transit
District, and City of Glendale, and AC Transit.
Preferential Treatment- Design Elements
8 Park-and-ride
Providing parking facilities at bus stops can facilitate transit and rideshare use. Bicycle
parking can also help facilitate transit utilization. They should be designed to facilitate
effective and convenient connectivity to the bus stop itself. Park-and-ride lots are
generally on the side of a freeway, requiring pedestrian connectivity through a bridge or
underground pathway to connect to both sides of the roadway. If right -of-way permits,
some park-and-ride facilities can be located in the center of the freeway.
South Everett Freeway Station in Washington on
(I-5)- Provides a park-and-ride in the middle of the
freeway with freeway level bus access.
196
Eliane Wilson
June 18, 2012
Page 25 of 26
9 Fully Grade-Separated Transit-ways Exclusive transit-way provides complete separation from mixed flow traffic. Although
typically the most expensive option, it can be most successful in reducing trip time.
Pittsburg Grade Separated Bus Way
10 At Grade Transit-way These facilities are physically separated and utilize fully designated transit ways
separated by medians or other barriers. They need to secure right -of-way.
TransMilenio system in Bogotá, Columbia
11 Bus Only Lane
Bus Only Lanes utilize existing infrastructure and provide a designed bus lane within the
infrastructure to restrict other vehicles use of the lane. They are enforced with physical
barriers or pavement markings. Helps buses minimize delays with other vehicle traffic
and improve travel time. Bus-only lanes are typically used in corridors with high bus
frequencies.
EmX BRT Corridor, Eugene, Oregon
197