Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/1995, 4 - UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING FINDINGS ��99gg N��I�m�n�l���pp`` MEETING DATE: ��vlwl�1�luI�II 11 � of san Lv.AIS OBISPO 4/18/95 ffFAN__IIIIUWI�u' COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works ~ Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit Manager ,�\o SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs Hearing Findings CAO RECOMMENDATION: Based on Council adopted definition criteria, find that there are "no unmet transit needs". DISCUSSION: Bac and On March 7, 1995, Council took public testimony on Unmet Transit Needs. Staff was directed to analyze each request for transit service to determine if any meet the City adopted definitions "reasonable to meet" and "unmet transit need". Results of testimony Twenty requests were received from the public hearing, telephone, mail and office visits (see the attached grid). Requests must meet all of the requirements of the definitions of "Unmet" and "Reasonable" (a copy of the adopted definitions is attached). The most frequent request resulted from the loss of service on Chorro (from Palm to Foothill) with eight requests. None of the requests meet the Council's criteria of what constitutes an unmet transit need. However, given the number of requests to reinstate bus service on Chorro Street, staff felt it would be appropriate to provide the Council with the following information: 1. The requests are all needs appearing to be eligible for dial-a-ride service under the definition of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). 2. The City financed dial-a-ride Runabout does not meet the desires of those disabled riders in the Chorro area. This is due to: a) the Runabout requirement that a reservation must be made for each trip; and b)the timeliness of the trip provided (the reservation"window"in the ADA allows the dial-a-ride to negotiate the pick up times in both directions of the trip by one hour); and c) frequently the disabled service is unavailable at the requested times, due to prior reservations. 3. A contractual arrangement could be established with another service provider(example Ride- On) to provide service to both disabled and senior citizens in a specific area of the City, where Council feels it is too difficult to access fixed route service. �u�m► I�IfNI��P° ��U��I city of San JS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Unmet Needs Page Two Staff has contacted Ride-On and been offered a rate of$1.00 pick up fee, plus 40 cents per 1/10th mile, with a one mile minimum. With an estimated average trip of 1 1/2 miles, each direction of the trip would cost $7.00 (including the $1.00 pick up fee). 4. SLO Yellow Cabs rate is a $2.00 pick up fee, plus 20 cents per 1/10th mile. The 11/2 mile to the existing transit center trip would cost $5.00. 5. A City operated Dial-a-Ride could also be initiated to meet the needs of"special" areas and riders. This probably would not be significantly less expensive relative to either Ride-On or SLO Yellow Cab. It is projected that insufficient funds will be available for this as an alternative. Each of the above have operating costs and none are as inexpensive as the subsidized bus charge of$SO per trip. The City could choose to implement any of the alternatives and likewise choose to subsidize, or not, a portion of the cost for those services.As an example,if the City were to subsidize taxi service for ADA qualified citizens in the Chorro area only, at$50 per trip to the Transit Center, the estimated cost to the City would be $36,000 (2 round trips/day x 8 people x 250 days/year x $9.00/round trip). Current budget does not have funds to initiate these services. Another way of addressing the requests is via adopted Transit Service Standards. The Council will be reviewing the adopted goals contained in the Short Range Transit Plan that apply to proximity of a customer's origin and destination to a fixed transit route (currently one quarter mile). Staff is proposing an update of the Short Range Transit Plan as part of it's 1995/96 work program, thus Council decision on service standards could be expected by December 1995. FISCAL EMPACT: As no service changes will result from this "Unmet Transit Needs"process, there is no fiscal impact. attachment-ResWb of testimony Adopted def n tions unmetapda �� U 2 > 41 H q § 2 to § § $4 § o o § ■ o m 4J r4 0 \ 4-)ca \ $ ` 0 ■ e ■ ■ w 2 $ 2 0 0 2 2° § 2 $4 $ § g ■ 4 § r. t 14 ° § :5 � � t ® § . 04 . § . i § © ang - § _ § N ƒ § n o e . sw � 4k 0) ■ a « ■ m ■ ■ m � 4) K � � E4 3 Q24) z k4j >4 z 44 � © 2 3k to . t § ) � . t $44J § -H 2 � k ■ 4) § 2 t 2 ° § 2 2 § % - 2 � � ■ 4 44 4) 2 4) © q2 k to > ° �p � o ® 4-) ° (aE4 toka § k o 4J4J ■ P V 2 / § §j /o � 1 z � . rO2V 4.4 � § - * 0 .0 ) 20) / � \ 22 / ® k MA § r g2 k� tee ■ ae ■ a .0 k 01a 0 > Ar, , _ 4J k 0) ON 4) :1 t4) § $4 : g-H § x4) 2 ■ ■ ■ QV « ww _ & r. o k o2 $4 q ' -4 z0 4J � � 2 �2 I§ OD 2 n n n c ■ 2 § E 2 & ■ ■ ror- :1 ea V4-) 7q 22 �-� EXHIBIT "A" THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IF REQUEST IS AN UNMET TRANSIT NEED An "unmet transit need" is a mobility need that is: not being met by the current public transit system; is essential for transit dependents or choice riders; and has been identified by community input through the public hearing process; and If a request fails to satisfy any of the criteria below, stop the analysis, the request is not an "unmet transit need" . YES NO 1. The request fills a gap in transit service. 2. Sufficient broad based community support exists (15 requests for fixed route transit service,. 10 requests for *paratransit service. 3. Request is a current, rather than a future need. 4. Request is not operational in nature (minor route change, bus stop, etc. ) EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IF AN UNMET TRANSIT NEED IS REASONABLE TO MEET An unmet transit need is "reasonable to meet" if the new, expanded, or revised service, if implemented, would not cause SLO Transit to incur expenditures in excess of available TDA and Section 9 operating funds, and would meet the required farebox ratio - (20%) based on projected ridership; and If a request fails to satisfy any of the criteria below, the request is not "reasonable to meet". 5. Request is projected to generate- a 20% farebox ratio. 6. Service is comparable to other services, or is a market-driven service (greater than 40% projected load/capacity factor) . 7. . Request is fundable with existing TDA/Section 9 funds, without reducing other existing services. *Provided under Regional Transit agreement u�emeean+an Ov , .:TING AGENDA DATE ITEM # SLO City Council, & The T-T Readers: This city amazes me! The environmentalist people are always complaining about there being too much traffic, and someone else tries to meet the needs, by complicating the matter. How much simpler, cheaper, and practical would it be to use the small "Jitney-type" vans, like San Francisco, to transport people about; particularly in the areas that the big, combersome, smelly busses aren't wanted! (e.g.. Chorro St. area) Our citizens with physical differences want to live as normal lives as possible. Surely there are vans that get decent mileage, that would flow with the traffic much better that big buses, and lessen the exhaust problem. It might open more areas for public transportation, at a cheaper expense. Several years ago there was a proposal in the paper that more of these "little busses' be used, in conjunction with encouraging people to use the future rail system that would travel between the local county cities. Why not just use the small busses now within the city, as "feeders" with connections with the major bus lines now in use? Perhaps more people would use the bus system, if it was more convenient to reach. Joan Scholz i d V.COUNCIL :E;3 ]IN RECEI13 FIN DIR VEp p�Cno IEF ANk 7 IYyJ �j►rroRNEr �f 9I.ERIWRI(� CHF CITY COUIVCI I 17 MOUTT� UN "Q^q, l ❑ C D FILE ,R�,. Jt4