BOS Agenda/Minutes - July 11, 1991boardarchives.metro.net/Other/BOS/BOS_2_026.pdf · 2005. 1....

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEThursday, July Ii, 1991 - 9:30 a.m.

LACTC Los Anqeles Room, 10th Floor818 West Seventh Street

Los Angeles, CA 90017

A g e n d a .1804

o

Call to Order

Approval of June 6, 1991 Minutes

(Item #2, Page 2)

RTD Line 130/Torrance Line 6 Funding

(Item #3, Page 5)

North County Included.Municipal Operator Status

(Item #4, Page 9)

City of L.A. Included Municipal Opeator Status

(Item #5, Page 14)

Private Sector Involvement Policy

(Item #6, Page 34)

On-board Origin and Destination Survey

(Item #7, Page 44

Congestion Management Program/Transit Element

(Item @8, Page 48)

9. FY 1992 State Transit Assistance Allocation

(Item @9, Page 77)

i0. Legislative Update:¯ Proposed CHP Paratransit Regulations (pg. 79)¯ State Budget¯ Commission-sponsored Letter

Ii.

12. New Business

12. Adjournment

Los Angeles County818 West SeventhStreetTransportation Suite1100Commission Los Angeles, CA 90017

Proposition C Discretionary Update (Oral Report)

DISPOSITION

ACTION

ACTION

DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION

(Little)


(De Rock)


(Patashnick)


(Parker)

DISCUSSION(Maekawa)

INFORMATION(McAllester)

INFORMATION(Royal)

INFORMATION(Moody)

INFORMATION(Cardwell)

Tel 213 623-1194

Leading th o Way to Greater Mobility

Minutes

JUNE !16, 1991

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Name

Stephanie GriffinBirgit BrazillWhit BallengerDave Pilker

MEMBERS PRESENT

John Fong¯

John DimarioMark MaloneLarry TorresMarlon WalkerA1 ReyesBob Hildebrand

Steven BrownPatti PostG.E. VanderventerDennis NewjahrJacqueline Marquez

Mary Sue O’Melia-

OTHERS PRESENT

Aqency

Santa MonicaCulver CityGardenaL~A. Co. Dept. of

Public WorksL.A. City Dept. of

TransportationLa Mirada "Long BeachMontebelloRedondo BeachSCRTDTorrance

SCRTDPatti Post & AssociatesSCRTDSCRTDL.A. Co. Dept. of Public

WorksBooz-Allen & Hamilton

Brent CardwellRex GephartSteve GleasonDeidre HeitmanBen Jong

LACTC STAFF PRESENT

Brad McAllesterJim OrtnerAlan PatashnickDale RoyalSusan Perry

Los Angeles CountyTransportationCommission

818 West Seventh StreetSuite 1100Los Angeles, CA 90017Tel 213 623-1194 002

Leading the Way to Greater Mobility

BOS MinutesMeeting of June 6, 1991Page Two

CALL TO ORDER

The Meeting was called to order at 9:38 a.m.

APPROVAL OF MAY 23, 1991 MINUTES

The minutes were moved, seconded, and approved as corrected.

REVISED LACTC FUNDING GUIDELINES

Brad McAIIester,LACTC, informed the BOS.members that the finaldraft of the CMP Transit Element was being delayed" until the end ofJuly to allow more time for comments. McAllester requested thatthe BOS CMP Working Group reconvene on Friday, June 14, 1991 at9:00 a.m.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

SB-3 - regarding STA fund allocations, the bill was signedinto law by the Governor on May 28, 1991. LACTC staff willestimate the allocations by operator, in June, 1991.

AB-933 " regarding telecommuting, Deidre Heitman, LACTC ex-plained that the Commission voted to oppose the bill based onthe opinion that telecommuting is not an eligible expense forSTA funds.

AB-347 - regarding drug testing, Deidre Heitman, LACTC dis-cussed how applying federal standards to testing would impactcurrent procedures.

TORRANCE/SCRTDTORRANCE TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION

Item tabled until July BOS meeting.

FY 1992 CAPITAL PROJECT REQUEST

Dale Royal, LACTC, informed the members that all operator capitalprojectswere going to be recommended for funding¯ Rex Gephart,LACTC, noted that five operators (Culver City, Long Beach, Monte-bello, SCRTD, and TOrrance) were being approached to discuss fund-ing via lease obligation Certificates of Participation for majorprojects.

007

BOS MinutesMeeting of June 6, 1991Page Three

ALTERNATIVE FUEL BUS TECHNOLOGY

BOS members asked Jim Ortner, LACTC to investigate emissions re-quirements for smaller vehicles and funding guideline~ for Methanolfuel buses.

30-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE

Steve Gleason, LACTC, outlined the review schedule for the 30-YearFinancial Plan = June 14 Finance & Programming Committee

= June 19 Planning & Mobility Committee

PROPOSITION C DISCRETIONARY UPDATE

BOS members asked Brent Cardwell, LACTC, to note that overcrowdingrelief seems to be at a competitive disadvantage in the proposedexpansion-by-application process.

PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN UPDATE

Item cancelled.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

BOS:MINUTES.BOSDR:db

July 3, 1991

MF~O TO: BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 7/17MEETING ¯FINANCE AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE - 7/15 MEETING

NEIL PETERSON

IMPROVING METRO BLUE LINE FEEDER SERVICE TO ARTESIASTATION

ISSUE

T0improve Blue Linepatronage, SCRTD and Torrance Transit areproposing to increase bus service between the Blue Line ArtesiaStation and California State University Dominguez Hills (CS~~)H).SCRTD is requesting $380,000 and Torrance $103,000 from LA~C forthis service expansion proposal.

REC~OMMmmATION

Allocate a total of $222,600 in FY 1991-92 and FY 1992-93 ofProposition A Discretionary Interest funds. Of thistotal,allocate $32,600 to Torrance Transit Line #6 and $190,000 forSCRTD Line #130 to expand transit service from the Artesia

Station. .

REI~%TIONSHIP TO LACTC GOALS

This recommendation conforms to the LACTC’s goals of constituentsatisfaction and mobility improvement by increasing convenienttransit access to a center for higher learning, an importantemployment corridor, and two major shopping areas. A highmobility improvement delivered per dollar expended is expected asfifty percent of both projects will be funded locally. Theproposal promotes organizational effectiveness by promotinginteragency efforts to improve transit access countywide.

B~DGET IMPACT

Total cost of the proposal is $222,600. As Transit ServiceExpansion funds have been completely allocated, staff .isrecommending the use of Proposition A Discretionary Interestfunds, of which $15 million is available. Since the PropositionClawsuit has put fiscal constraints on all transit fundingsources, staff is recommending that $222,600 rather than the$483,000 requested by the operators, be allocated for thisproposal.

Los Angeles County818 We~t,~venlh StreetTransportation Suite 1100Commission Les Angeles. CA 90017

~,~.~. ~Te, 213 623-1194


BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEEFINANCE AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE¯July 3, 1991Page 2

BACKGROUND

Currently, the only way for transit riders to travel the two-miledistance between CSUDH and the Artesia Station is on SCRTD Line#130. This line operates at forty-minute headways, while theBlue Line operates at ten minute peak-period and fifteen minuteoff-peak headways. The ~halance in transit service frequency atthis bus-rail interface location discourages CSUDH students andemployees, as well as workers of the 190th Street employmentcorridor; from using the Metro Blue Line. To assist students andemployees, the CSUDH administration has requested increasedtransit service between the university and the Metro Blue Line.Both Torrance Transit and SCRTD responded to this request.

Torrance Transit’s ~roposed Line #6 will provide new peak-periodservice with thirty-minute headways between the Del Amo FashionCenter and the Artesia Station, via the 190th Street employmentcorridor and CSUDH. SCRTD originally proposed peak-periodservice expansion for the entire Line #130, between Redondo Beachand Fullerton, to be LACTC-funded through the Transit ServiceExpansion Program. Staff felt that peak-period service expansionwas not justified for the entire route, and the proposal wasdown-scoped to its most cost effective components. The revisedSCRTD project, coordinatedwith Torrance Transit, would expandpeak-period service between the South Bay Galleria and theArtesia Station via CSUDH¯(Attachment A). Headways would decreased from fortyminutes to thirty minutes.

COOPERATIVE TRANSIT SERVICE PROPOSAL

As part of a "new cooperative effort ~, Torrance Transit and theSCRTD have proposed a coordination of service for TorranceTransit Line #6 and SCRTD Line #130 between CSUDH and the ArtesiaStation. Attachment A is a map of the proposed service. Thiscoordinated service includes:-

o Accepting interagency fare media along the duplicatedsegments of both bus lines. This will be the firststep towards LACTC’s goal Of complete fare mediatransferability among all ¯transit operators in LosAngeles County.

o Coordination of both lines’ operating schedules witheach other and with the Metro Blue Line for greaterconvenience to passengers.

o Developing a joint marketing program to promote theexpanded bus service.

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEEFINANCE AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEEJuly 3, 1991Page 3

FI~%NCIAL ANALYSIS

The fb~lowing table shows the net operating costs of TorranceTransit and SCRTD’s Service Expansion proposals, funds requestedby the two agencies and the funds recommended for allocation byLAC~C.

Net operating cost(FY ’92 & FY ’1993)

Loca i Contribut ion

Previously funds approved

Funds requested

L~CTC RECOMMENDATIONTotal funds recommended[50% of net operating costs]

Funds. already approved ¯

Net Funds Recommendedfor allocation:

TorranceTransit

$201,800

$(30,500)

$ 68.300)

$103,000

$100,900

$(68.300)

$ 32,600

SCRTD

$380,000

$380,000

$190,000

$190,000

Bus ridership projections will be available at the BOS,F&PC meetings.

Total

$581,800

$ 30,500

$ 68°300

$483,000

$290,900

$~68.300)

$222,600

PMIC and

A cooperative transit service expansioneffort by Torrance andSCRTD is a first step toward a countywide integrated transit

network and fare system. This integrated transit service willimprove transit mobility and promote Metro Blue Line usage amongCSUDH students and staff, as well as area employees andresidents.

Staff recommends that fifty percent of the proposed expanded.service net costs minus any previously approved allocations befundedby LACTC.

PREP~D BY: BRYCE LITTLE, Project Manager~:! South Bay

~~Director

South Bay

UrbanGreenways\TT-RTDAttachments

007

SCRTD Line #130 and Torrance Transit Line #6¯Proposd Enhanced Service

ATTACHMENT A

lllilllliilliilllilllilllllillll’l RTD LINE 130

i .. w i " i METRO BLUE LINE

TORRANCE LINE 6

[] SOUTH RAYGALLERtA

¯ DEL AMO FASHION CENTER

O ARTESIA STATIONCAL STATE DOMINGUEZ

Ne|l PetersonExecutive Director

July 3, 1991

MEMO TO: BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBIT.TTY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE -7/17MEETING

FROM: NEIL PETERSON

SUBJECT: INCLUDED MUNICIPALOPERATOR STATUS FOR SANTA CLARITATRANSITAND THE ANTELOPE VATR~Y TRANSIT SYSTEM

ISSUE

The City of Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley Transit Systemhave requested that they be designated Included Municipal Operatorsand be allocated funding beginning in FY 1993.

KECOMMENDATION

o

Designate the City of Santa Clarita as an Included MunicipalOperator for the allocation of UMTA Section 9 funds, StateTransit Assistance and Proposition A Discretionary fundsbeginning in F¥ 1993.

Designate theAntelope Valley Transit System as an IncludedMunicipal Operator for the allocation of Proposition ADiscretionary and State Transit Assistance funds beginning inFY 1993. ~

3. Utilize the growth over inflation in Proposition ADiscretionary monies to provide the required subsidy.

~ELATIONSHIP TU COMMISSION GOA~

The designation of the North County transit operators as IncludedMunicipal Operators will improve and expand transit services in theSanta Clarita and Antelope Valleys. The direct results and bene-fits to North County residents will be improved mobility in acost-effective manner, an enhanced quality of life, and an in-creased level of satisfaction with their transit .services.

Los Angeles County818 West Seventh StreetTransportation Suite 1100Commission Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel 213 623-1194009


BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 7/17 MEETINGNORTH COUNTY INCLUDED OPERATOR STATUSPage 2

The designation of the City of Santa Clarita and the AntelopeValley Transit System as Included Municipal Operators will have nodirect effect on the Commission’s budget as the funds these agen-cies receive are not included in our budget. It is recommendedthat the growth over inflation in Proposition A 40% Discretionaryfunds be utilized to keep the current included municipal operators’base whole. The North County operators would be eligible to re-ceive UMTASection 9, State Transit Assistance, and Proposition ADiscretionary funds. The maximum impact would be approximately0.33% of the total available regional fundsor $1.4 million. Thislevel of allocation would only be reached if the North Countycities commit all other available funds to transit operations.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

In April of this year, both the City of Santa Clarita and theAntelope Valley Transit Syste m requested that the LACTC designatetheir transit systems as Included Municipal OperatOrs. Both opera-tors indicated that with the change in the Proposition ADiscretionary guidelines, they wish to have their existing servicesincluded inthe revised program’s funding base. Both the SantaClarita and Antelope Valley cities have requested their inclusionon the basis of equity and fairness.

As the North County is totallyoutside ofthe SCRTD’s service area,it receives no direct or indirect benefit from the Proposition A40% Discretionary fund. In fact, the North County cities havecalculated that for every $i.00 paid in Proposition A sales taxesin the North County~ they receive only $0.16 in return. Based onthis reality and the fact that both North County operators meet thegeneral criteria for designation as an Included Municipal Operator,they haveasked to be included in the regional funding pool so thatthey may receive a fare share of the tax receipts.

In the case of Santa Clarita, the city is requesting eligibility toreceive its proportionate share of UMTA Section 9 funds, StateTransit Assistance (STA) and Proposition A Discretionary funds.The City has not requested any share of the TransportationDevelopment.Act (TDA) Article 4 funds as it currently receives like amount of TDA Article 8 funds. Santa Clarita has submittedinformation to show that it has met all of the Commission’s adoptedcriteria, for designation as anIncluded Municipal Operator(Attachment A). In conformance with the policy, the general publiccommuter service has been in operation, for over six years and forthe last four years has achieved a 60% farebox recovery.

010

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEP[ENT COMMITTEE - 7/17 MEETINGNORTH COUNTY INCLUDED OPERATOR STATUS

Page 3

The system has submitted and has had approved short range transitplans and is providing a service beyond the service area of allother transit providers. Additionally, the Santa Clarita servicehas developed a transfer agreementwith the SCRTD and has submittedSection 15 data since 1987.

The Antelope Valley Transit System is only requesting eligibilityfor Proposition A Discretionary and STA funds as it receives TDAArticle 8 and its own allocation of UMTA section 9 fUnds. Similarto Santa Clarita, the Antelope Valley Transit system has submitteddocumentation showing that its Commuter service wil!~meet allof the adopted criteria for designation as an Included MunicipalOperator by FY 1993.

Commission staff has reviewed the requests by the North Countytransit operators and believe they have merit~ Both transit sys-tems are currently in the process of significant expansions andhave proposed service plans which use all of their Proposition ALocal Return allocations as well as other local funds. Addition-ally, both transit systems are the sole providers of transit ser-vices in their respective areas, provide services of regionalsignificance and have agreed to participate in theMetro network.For these reasons, Commission staff recommends designating the Cityof Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley Transit system IncludedMunicipal Operators for the allocation of Proposition ADiscretionary, STA and UMTA Section 9 funds. To insure that theincluded municipal operators remainfinancially whole, the growthover inflation in Proposition A Discretionary is recommended as afunding source.

Regulations require eight affirmative votes of the Commission foradmitting new operators to Included Municipal Operator status andprior to any allocation of funds to a newly designated IncludedMunicipal Operator.

Prepared By: RICHARD DeROCKProject ManagerSan Fernando Valley/North County Area Team

NEIL PETERSONExecutive Director

NP:RDRRDR4a:INC2

ATTACHMENT A

PAT RUSSELL

EDMOND J. RUSS

JOHN Z~MME.RMAN- ....~lman

WENDELl. COX

RICK RICHMONDEXECUTIVE D~;~ECTG~

Z~EW TR~/~SIT Op~A_TORS TO ELIGIBILITY

FOR TDA FUNDING PURSUANT TO AB 103

The following criteria for a~.~~ssion of new

o.~ators to the status of eliclbi!ity for receipt" (SB 325) funds

of Transportetion Developme-n_t Ac.t . =

a= ~u~ ~=9~ r., ~_ ~^ -~Dted bv at leas..

eight votes %tudor Sections 99207(d) and 99285(f)

of the Caiifo-~%ia Pub!ic Utilities code as amendedby AB 103.

A transit syst ~., seeking desi.cr.ation as an"included m~nicipal operator" ~.d.er Section 99207(d)

of t/~e Public Uti!ities Code shall be re~aired tomeet ~_he following criteria:

i. The mur~iciDa! system has been in continuousoperation ~or a minimum period of three ye =--~s ¯

2. The mum~cipal system shall have be=-n available

for use by the ce_neral public, during the s~=et~ree-yea_ ~ perlod.

3.During this s~me entire three-year period~ ~_he

system’s operating expenses shall havesupported at least 50 percent by one or moreof t_he following f,cm.dLng so.cos : fares, cityg~neral funds, or Federal UMTA pro.crams. Monies_

- Loca~ Return rcvig~

~ t/~IS cr~ter!c~n-

4. The mum.icipal system’s Short Range Transit Plan

has been approved by %_h.e Los Angeles CountyTransportation Commlss !on.

5. The m~niciDa! system is reasonably meeting atransportai~ion need that would otherwise .not be

met, and is providing a transit service that"cannot effectively be provided by an operator~hat is currently receiving TDA assistance-

0i2

Entry Criteria Page Two

6’ The municipal, system is ~t~ated and ¢~r~ted withintersecting or

7..~ .-The Enln/cipal system has ~-~gement information andaccounting syst"mm adequate to meet the data gatheringand reporting requ/rements of the Transportation Devel-opment Act and Section 15 of the Urban Mass Transportation

¯ Act, as

8. Notwithstanding the criteria numbered {i), (2), and a~ove, a t~_~sit system may be made eligible for TDAfunding 4-~ediate!y after its treat-ion if it consistssubstant~11y of a reorganization or rep!eco~n~ of try.n-sit system(s)which were previously eligible for TDA f’~ds,and provides service substantially s~lar to sea_vice whichpreviously received TDA su~si~/es.

0.t3

July 3, 1991

Neil PetersonExecutive Director

FROM:

SUBJECT:

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 7/17MERTING

NEIL PETERSON

INCLUDED MUNICIPALOPERATORSTATUS FOR THE CITY OF LOSANGELES

ISSUE

The City of Los Angeles has requested designation as an IncludedMunicipal Operator by the Commission.

RECOMMENDATION¯

i, Amend criteria for designation of an Included MunicipalOperator to add a ninth criterion as follows: Notwithstandingcriteria #’s 1, 2, and¯3 as depicted on Attachment A, anoperator may be designated an Included Municipal Operator forspecific services previously funded through an LACTCdemonstration grant by eight affirmative votes of theCommission. "

2. Designate the City of Los Angeles as an Included MunicipalOperator for its Bus Service Continuation Project (BSCP)services, Downtown DASH and the Harbor Shuttle and allocate$3,021,000 for these services.

3. Providefunding from the Proposition A Incentive accountduring FY 1992. Beginning in FY 1993 the City would be fundedfrom the growth over inflation in Proposition A 40%Discretionary funds. In the event there is inadequate growthin Proposition A Discretionary funds, the shortfall will beoffset from Proposition A Incentive funds and/or otheravailable funding sources.

RELATIONSHIP TO COMMISSION GOALS

The inclusion of the city of LOs Angeles into the regional funding

programs is consistent with several Commission goals. The estab-lishment of a stable funding source will ensure the continuation of

Los Angeles County 818 West Seventh StreetTransportation Suite 1100Commission Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel 213 623-1194


BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE.- 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILTTY IMPROVEME.NT COMMITTEE - 7/17 MEETINGLA CITY INCLUDED MUNICIPAL OPERATOR STATUSPage 2

these vital services which will maximize mobility in a highly cost-effective manner and maintain the quality of life for the existingriders.

BUDGET IMPACT

Approving the request of the City of Los Angeles to become anIncluded Municipal Operator would have no direct effect on theCommission’s budget as the allocated funds are not includedwithinthe budget. However, the allocation of funds to-the City in excessof current allocations would reduce the availability of the fundsforother transportation purposes. As these services are currentlyfunded by the Commission in the amount of approximately $1.38million, the net impact of the recommended action is an increase intotal allocations of $1.64 million.

BACKGROUND

In 1977, in an effort to control allocations and to ensure adequatefunding for transit operations, the LACTC sponsored a bill to limitthe nnmher of potential recipients of Transportation DevelopmentAct Article 4, State Transit Assistance and Urban MassTransportation Administration funds (TDA, STA and UMTA). Thisbill, AB 103, limited the potential recipients of TDA, STA and UMTAfunds to transit operators designated as "included municipal opera-tors" as defined by Public Utilities Code (PUC) 99207. Includedmunicipal operators are defined as any operator providing servicewithin the service area of the SCRTD continuously since 1971 or anyoperator meeting criteria adopted by eight votes of the LACTC.Additionally, the~statute requires eight affirmative votes of theCommission prior to any allocation of funds to a newly designatedIncluded Municipal Operator.

In 1979 the Commission adopted criteria for the designation oftransit operators as included municipal operators. These criteriarequire a potential recipient to: provide general public servicefor over three years; provide at least 50% of the operating fundsfrom fares, city general funds or UMTA funds; meet a transit needthat would not otherwise be met and coordinate service with ad-joining operators; report UMTA Section 15 data and have submitted aShort Range Transit Plan to the Commission. In addition, thecriteria allows an operator to be designated an included municipaloperator if it provides service previously provided by a TDA recip-ient.

015

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMRNT COMMITTEE - 7/17 MEETINGLA CITY INCLUDED MUNICIPAL OPERATOR STATUSPage 3

Under this criteria, (Attachment A) no operator has been designatedan Included Municipal Operator since the passage of Proposition Ain 1980.

D:[SCUSSION

Early this year, during the discussions on the revisions to theProposition A Discretionary program, the City of Los Angeles.re-quested that they be designated an Included Municipal Operator sothat their current services could be added to any calculation of anoperator’s "base" service. In addition, the City of Los Angeleshas requested the Commission take this action in a means whichwould not reduce funding to any current Included MunicipalOperator. In March, staff presented an issues memo on this topic

to the Commission (Attachment B) and agreed to return in June witha proposed response to the City’s request. By becoming an includedmunicipal operator, the City could begin to cultivate arelationship with UMTA and eventually assume all responsibilitiesfor existing and future federal grants. ~

Over the past two months our staff has reviewed the various Optionsand the reasonableness of including the City of Los Angeles as anIncluded Municipal Operator. Through this process, we have deter-mined that it is appropriate that the City be included in theCommission’s regional funding programs for providing services ofregional significance if such inclusion would not affect the allo-cation of funds to any current regional funds recipient.

Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Commission act toamend the entry criteria to include the City of Los Angeles BusService continuation Project services, Downtown Dash and the HarborShuttle services into the regional funding programs. These ser-vices have been partially funded by the Commission through theIncentive program for four years (BSCP and Harbor Shuttle) to fiveyears (DASH). In June of 1990, ourstaff identified that theIncentive program could not provide long-te~m funding for theseservices and continue to meet its other program obligations. TheCommission directed staff to develop a long-term funding mechanismfor the City’s transit programs by FY 1992. It is our belief thatthis proposal responds to the Commission’s concern for a long-term~inding mechanism and the City’s request for a stable fundingsource for these services. Attachment C depicts the City’s transitservices recommended for funding through the regional fundingprograms.

Our staff is recommending that the City’s inclusion in the regionalfunding program be limited to the services listed above. Under~is recommendation, the city would continue to fund their localshuttles and dial-a-ride programs with local Proposition A moniesand subregional paratransit funds. We believe that this is

0].6

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGPLANNING AND MOBILTTY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 7/17 MEETINGLA CITY INCLUDED MUNICIPAL OPERATOR STATUSPage 4

consistent with the Commission’s goal of maximizing mobility perdollar expended andmaintaining a local involvement in local tran-sit. Furthermore, we believe that the recently approved serviceexpansion program provides adequate opportunity for the City topropose and acquire funding for new services of regional signifi-cance.

..FUNDING

In order to avoid reductionsin funding to the current IncludedMunicipal Operators, staff is proposing that the City of LosAngeles be funded in future years from the growth over inflation inthe Proposition A 40% Discretionary Program. As all of these fundshave been programmed for FY 1992, we are recommending that the Citybe funded with Proposition A Incentive funds during FY 1992. Ifthere is insufficient growth in Proposition A 40% Discretionaryfunds during FY 1993, then any shortfall for the City will beoffset from Proposition A Incentive funds and/or otheravailable sources.

Prepared by:" RICHARD DeROCKProject ManagerSFV/NC Area Team

ALAN PATASHNICKProject ManagerCentral Area Team


NP:RDRRDR4a:INC

017

ATTACHMENT A

COM.MI~IONERS:

EDMUND D. ED-=: MANV1CE ON.AiRMAN

TOM BRADLEY

PAT RUSSELL

EDMOND J. RUSS

,K:)HN Z]MME.~MAN- ....

HE}NZ HE.CK E~--~.TH

RICK RICHMONDEXE~J’I’IVE DIRECTO~

EITFRY CRITV-~t~AF ORADM~SSION OF~ TRanSIT OPERATOES TO ELIG!BiLZTY

FOR TDA FUND-~NG PURSUANT TO AB 103

The following criteria for admission of newoperators to the stat’-~s of eligibility for receipto= Transportetion Development Act (SB 325) fundswere. adopted by the Commission, by a vote of 9--0,at its regular meetimg of December 19, 1979. Suchcriteria are req~. ired to be adopted by at leasteight vo.tes under Sections 99207(d) and 99285(f)

of the Califox~ia P~blic Utilities code as amendedby AB 103.

A transit syst~ seeking desi~ation as an"included m~nicipal operator" ~.der Section 99207(d)

of ~e Public Utilities Code shall be re~aired tomeet ~he following criteria:

e

e

e

e

The m-~nicipa! system has been in continuousoperation for a minimum period of ~%ree ye=--~s.

The m~nicipal system shall have be~n available

for use by the ~eneral public during ~e sa=ethree-year period.

During ehis s~me entire ~hree-year period, ~hesystem’s operatLng expenses shall have been---supported at least 50 percent by one or moreof ~he following f~m.dLng sources: fares, cityg~neral f~ds, or Federal UM.TA programs. Monie~

: , .~d r ~he 25% Local Ret’~sicns~ cc~_~derec pa~ of "Clr~

~= D~ = -re

The municipal system’s Short Range Transit Planhas been approved by ~he Los Angeles CountyTransportation Commission.

The m~niciDa! system is reasonably meeting atransporte~ion need ~at would otherwise not be

¯ met, and is providing a trar.sit service t~at"cannot effectively be provided by an operator~hat is currently receiving TDA assist=-nc e"

018

Entry criteria"- Page Two

-- ..... ’~e~ is inte~ated and coordinated with6. T~e mu~iclpa~ ~. _ .~tersect~ng or adDoir~ng pum~ac.u=~ ; .

-~- ~,~in~ svst~ has ~nag ~ment info__r_-~.tlon..and.7. ~= --~--.- = .- - .____i_ ~. ,~ the da~a gannerlng

and reporting r~u=~=~=?_~- ~ _~.._=.~ -=ss Trans~rtat~onopment Act and SectionAct, as

Notwithstanding the criteria numbered {i), (2), and 8.

~ve. a transit system "~y be _~de.e!igib!e for .TD~--- "" : - iate! after its creation if it consistsfundlng .Im~..ed Y ¯ " r re lace~ent of tran-substanta@~Y of a reorganization o P fundssit system(s) which were previously eligible for TDA

,

and provides seurvice substantially similar.to service whichpreviously received TDA subsidies.

-019

¯ NElLEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

March14, 1991

MEMO) TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

ATTACHMENT B’ Los Angeles CountyTransportation Commission818 West Seventh StreetSuite 1100 " .Los Angeles, CA 90017213/ $23-1194

PLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE -3/20 MEETING

NEIL PETERSON

IMPLICATIONS OF DESIGNATING THE CiTY OF LOS ANGELESDEPARTMENT OF¯TRANSPORTATION AS AN INCLUDED MUNICIPALOPERATOR

ISSUE

The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation¯¯(LADOT) hasrequested consideration to become¯ an included. . municipal operator.The Planning and Mobility Improvement Commlttee (PMIC) recentlyrequested staff to prepare a report concerning LADOT becoming anincluded municipal operator.

~COMM~~ATZONThis initial report is for information and discussion only. Atentative schedule setting forth consideration of the item beforethe Commission and its committees is included for review andcomment.

RELATIONSHIP TO LACTC GOALS

The prospect of the City of Los Angeles Department of Transporta-tion becoming an included municipal operator relates to the Com-mission’s goals of mobility improvement, maximum mobility .perdollar expended and constituent satisfaction.

Budget impact will be discussed at the appropriate time when thestaff recommendation is presented to .t_he Commission.

BACKGROUND

At its February 19, 1991 meeting the PMIC requested the staff toprepare a report reviewing the ram. ifications of including the Cit~fo~of Los Angeles as an included munlcipal operator for the March

020, Leading the Way to Greater Mobility

PLANNING AND MOBILITY- IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 3/20 MEETINGMarch 14., 1991PAGE 2

~meeting. This was in response to a request made by LADOT. Pres-ently the "included" operators in Los Angeles county, those opera-

tors.receiving regional funds through the Commission, arecomprised of twelve municipal operators and the Southern Califor-nia Rapid Transit District (SCRTD). Of the thirteen operators,three provide only fixed’route service, four provide only dial-a-ride transportation, while thebalance provide both fixed-routeand dial-a-ride services. A list of the included operators isshown on Attachment A. The n-~her of included operators hasremained at the present level since 1986 when the City of HermosaBeach withdrew fromlthe Co~mission’s funding program. The lasttransit systems admltted entry as included municipal operatorsoccurred in the latter part of the 1970’s, prior to the availabil-ity of Proposition A dollars.

Attachment B provides the definitions of the terms "includedmunicipal operators (Section 992071, "municipal operator "(Section99209), and -operator" (Section 99210) -as found in Chapter

Transportation Development Article 1, General Provisions andDefinitionsof the Transportation Development Act (TDA).

CRITERIA

The entry criteria for admission of new transit operators to thestatus of eligibility for receipt of Co~mission funds, e.g.,TDA Article 4, State Transit Assistance (STA), Proposition A 40%Discretionary, and Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA)Section 9 for operating and capital needs, is depicted on Attach-ment C.

Any transit system seekingdesignation of an "included municipaloperator" under Section 99207(d) of the Public Utilities Code is.required to meet specific criteria in the areas of:

1. Length of continuous operation (minimum of three-years);

2. Availability for use by the general public during samethree-year period;

3. Minimum 50% level of support of the system’s operatingexpenses through fares, city general funds, or federalUMTA programs (Proposition A Local Return funds cannotbe considered as part of city’s general fund contribu-tion);

4. Approval of system’s Short Range-Transit Plan by LACTC;

5. Meeting a need that would otherwise not be met or ?annot49~be effectively provided by a current operator rebelving~

TDA;

021

PLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 3/20 MEETINGMarch 14, 1991 .PAGE 3

o Integration and coordination¯ with neighboring transitsystems;

Meeting the requiremen~s of TDA and Section 15 of the¯Urban Mass Transportation Act, as ~ended; and ~ ¯

Eligibilit~ for funding if system consists ofareorga-nizationor replacement of another.transit system previ-ously eligible for funding and provides substantiallysimilar service which previously received TDA subsi-dies,

Any change in the criteria for admitting new included municipaloperators or to allocate funds to any "included municipal o~era-tor" not previously receiving Commission formula funds requlreseight affirmative votes ofthe LACTC.

LADOT TRANSIT HISTORY

Before the implementation of Proposition A in 1982, the City ofLos Angeles, Department of Transportation, did not operate anyfixed-route transit and had only participated in pilot paratransitprojects. By contrast, the proposed 1991-92 LADOT transit budgetis approximately $30 million, divided equally between fixed-routeand services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. It isanticipated that by the end of the upcoming fiscal year over 300LADOT vehicles will be Operation with over 180 vehicles in fixed~route service and another 120 in paratransit operations.

Virtually all of these services will be operated through the com-¯

petitive contracting process, which means LADOT¯has no operatingipersonnel, but rather recommends a public or private sector entSty

to operate the service and maintain the vehicles based on respon-ses to Request For Proposals. However, LADOT does plan, monitorand administer the contract service including performing mainte-nance monitoring with City staff.

Although several pilot projects were started in 1984, the largestprojects, the DASH/Downtown service¯and the ii line Bus ServiceContinuation Project (BSCP) were implemented in 1985 and 198’7

respectively. The projects proved that competitive contracting,in general and private sector operation, in specific were viablemethods to deliver service.

LADOT has expanded the current operation of DASH/Downtown from 14to 34 vehicles on three routes with a corresponding ridership in-crease of approximately 160 percent, from under 3,000 passengersper day to over 8,000 daily riders." The BSCP also has achieved a1~

ridership increase of over i00 percent.

: 022

PLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 3/20 MEETINGMarch 14, 1991PAGE 4

LADOT indicates itbelievesthat a continued compe~itive contract-ing of niche services, such as local circulation routes, includinganticipated rail feeder services and commuter routes, provides aneffective addition to the transit system.: The City of Los Angelespresently receives $4.0million in Commission Proposition A Incen-tive funding for fixed-route and paratransit service and willreceive approximately $5.7 million of Transit Service Expansionfunds over a two-year period for both co~uter express and railfeeder services.~

The City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation has request-zed that the LACTC consider the implications of LADOT becoming anincluded operator with eligibility to receive Commission funding.

LADOT, like any transit operator, desires to receive a consistentlevel of fiscal support. Most of LADOT’s support is provided fromthe. city’s Proposition A .Local Return funds. Approximately $38million was received by the City during FY 1990. However, thosefunds also are utilized to support a variety of transportationactivities apart from the DOT transit services, including MetroRailconstruction and potential cost overruns."

Additionally, LADOT has no guaranteed source of capital funding.Whenever the Cityrequires capital financing~ it utilizes itsLocal Return funds or becomes a participant in a federal discre-tionary grantprogram, such as UMTA Section 3 process. UMTASection 3 monies funded the 40 bus purchase under the Bus ServiceContinuation Program. During the coming year, the City of Los

Angeles, as well.as all the other LOs Angeles County jurisdic-tions, will recelve additional funding under Proposition C.

Also, regional mobility and air quality concerns are extremelyimportant to the city of Los Angeles. The City’s six communitytransit programs, .which provides a high level of transportationfor the elderly and the disabled, will be one of the backbones ofthe County’s response in meeting the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) requirements.

023

PLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - 3/20 MEETINGMarch 14, 1991PAGE 5

Prior to LADOT officiallybecoming a voting me,her of the BusOperations Subcommittee (BOS) in February 1990, the City regularly

.attended BOS meetings. BOS granted LADOT voting privileges be-cause it felt the level of service provided by the City, as wellas its Proposition A Local Return expenditures, warranted LADOT’sdirect input on issues pertinent to the busoperators.

There is concern ~mong BOS members that an additional included "municipal operator would erode the shareof each operatorandpotentially open-thedoor for consideration of other opera-.tots. Through a formula process, the included operators each.receive ashare of the Commission’s subsidies-basedupon vehiclerevenue miles and fare units. A percentage share is computed and ~’~

multiplied by the estimated available funds in the funding catego-~’¯

ries (Proposition A Discretionary. and Section 9, TDA and STA).For FY1992, the SCRTD will recelve approximately 85% of theavailable subsidies while the municipal operators are allocatedthe 15% balance. Foothill Transit’s share is allocated from theDistrict’s share of Proposition A Discretionary funds. Addinganotherincluded operator without increasing the total fundsavailable ~ould decrease operator shares. FY 1992 ~Los AngelesCounty transit funding estimates e~ceed $426 million.

LA~)T has stated that it does not wish to negatively impact any ofthe included operators financially. DOT does not favor a reslic-ing of the commission subsidy pie, but does support increasing thepie to compensate for additional included operators. As part ofthe process presented in this staff report, analysis of potentialnew funding sources will be required.

pROCESS AND SCHEDULE . .

Staff proposes a process and schedule ~o include maximum input.from the BOS, Area Teams, Strategic Support and Commission commit-tees. A proposed schedule is shown on Attachment D.

Among the issues to be analyzed and included as part of the finalstaff recommendation will be:

1. Extent of eligible services

2. Level of funding

3. Available Commission financial resources

PLANNING AND MOBILITY IMPR6~SMENT COMMITTEE - 3/20 MEETINGMarch 14, 1991PAGE 6

Analysis of Included Operator EntryCriteria

Impact upon Commission funding programs; long-termimplications -~ ~

6.. Relationship ~o~LACTC.Goals

Various options will be explored in evaluating the extent ofeligible services. For example, one option could include only theBSCP routes while a second option would contain the BSCP routesand the DASH service. A third option might incorporate’BSCP, DASHand some level of the City’s paratransit progremo-Based upon thenumber of options examined, staff will determine the requiredlevel of funding and the potential impact upon any Commissionprograms.

It is anticipated that the issues will’be increased in number and/or modified as the process unfolds.

PREPARED BY: ALAN E.- PATASHNICKProject ManagerCentral Area Team


AEP:NP:mlhdPMIC\OPERATOR.DOTAT1

¯ ’ 130

LOS ANGELES COUNTY INCLUDED OPERATORS

OPERATOR SERVICE

Arcadia " DR

Claremont DR

Commerce FR, DR

Culver City FR

Gardena FR, DR

La Mirada -DR

Long Beach FR, DR

Montebello FR, DRNorwalk FR, DR

Redondo Beach DR

Santa Monica FRSouthern California Rapid Transit District FR

Torrance FR, DR

NOTE: DR denotes dial-a-ride operator.

FR denotes fixed-route operator.

FR, DR denotes operator provides both fixed-route and dial-a-ride services.

131

"DIRECTOR"

99205.6. ¯ "Director" means the Director of Transportation-

"FARE REVENUE S"

99205.7. "Fare revenues"-~eans the" revenue object classes

401, 402, and 403 as specified in section 630.12 of Title 49 ofthe Code.of Federal RegulationS’, as now or as may hereafter beamended. :

"FUND" " "

99206. ,’Fund" means the:local transportation fundestablished by a county under Article 11 (commencing with Section29530) of Chapter 2 of Division 3 of Title 3 of the Government

.Code.

,’HANDICAPPED PERSON"

99206.5. ,,Handicapped person" means any individual who byreason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other -permanent or temporary incapacity or disability, including but notlimited no, any individual confined t~ a wheelchair, is unable,without special facilities or special planning or design, to ~utilize public ¯ transportation facilities and services aseffectively as a person who is not so affected.

As used in this section, a temporary incapacity or disabilit9 isan incapacity or a disability which lasts more than 90 days ¯

"INCLUDED MUNICIPAL OPERATOR"

99207. (a) "Included municipal operator" means a city county which is included, in whole or in part, within a transitdistrict or which has been extended the ~uthority:to join atransit district by that district’s enabling¯legislation, and inwhich city or countypublic transportation services havecontinuously been provided, since at least January 1, 1971, by thecity or county, by a nonprofit corporation or other legal entitywholly owned by the city,¯ or county, or by the University of

California. . .... ¯

(b) ."Included municipal operator" also means the City andCounty of San Francisco and the Counties of Alameda and ContraCosta with respect to any portion of the unincorporated area ’thereof, and any city in those counties, which is outside the area

of the A!ameda-Contra Costa Transit District and which is notreceiving adequate local public transportation services, asdetermined by the Metropolitan TranSportation Commission~rom~anyof the transit districts which includes the county or city, taking

027

into consideration, among other things, the amount of suchservices needed in the county or city, the cost to provide suchservices, and the amount of such services provided in other areasof the transit district as compared to their needs.

(c) "Included municipal operator" also means any city withinthe County of Sacramento which (I) is outside the activatedboundaries of the Sacramento Regional Transit District, (2)cont~achs with the district for transit services, and (3) provides

/local transit services within the city that the Sacramento Area

¯ Council of Governments annually determines can be better providedby the city than the district, taking into consideration, amongother things, the amount and the hature of the services requiredin the city, the ability of the district to provide the services,

the coordlnatlo of the services with district services, theremoteness of the city in relation to other district services, thecost of providing the services, the funds available to provide the

" services, and the amount of services provided in othe; areas of

the district compared to their needs.

(d) "Included municipal operator" also means any city unincorporated area within the County of Los Angeles (I) that not receiving adequate local public transportation services, asdetermined by the Los Angeles Count~ Transportation Commission,from either the Southern California Rapid Transit District or anycurrently "included municipal operator" as defined in this

¯ section, and (2) that meets the criteria established by the LosAngeles County Transportation Commission, taking intoconsideration, among other things, the cost to provide suchservices, the amount of such services needed in the county orcity, the funds available to provide such services, and the amountof such services provided in other areas of the county as comparedto their needs.

"ZNCLUDZD T~A~SZT DISTR~CT"

" 99208. "Included transit district" means any of thefollowing which has operated a public transportation system since

at least January I, 1971.

(a) A transit district whose boundaries are containedentirely within those of a larger transit district.

. .(b) A district organized pursuant to Part 3 (commencing withSection 27000) of Division 16 of the Streets and Highways Code.

~,M~NiCIPAL¯¯OPERATOR"

-99209. -,Municipaloperator" means a city or county,including an~ nonprofit corporation or other legal entity whollyowned Or controlled by the city or county, which operates a public

-21-

tranSportation system, or which on July I, 1972, financiallysupported, in whole or in part, a privately owned publictransportation system, and which is not included,, in whole or inpart, within an existing ~ransit district.

COUNTY AS "MUNICIPAL OPERATOR" ~

99209.1 "Municipal operator" also means any county which islocated in part within a transit district and which operates apublic transportation system in the unincorporated area of thecounty not within the area of the district.

"OPERATES"

99209.5. "Operates" for purposes of Section 99209 and99~15, and "operation" for purposes of paragraph (1) subdivision (b) of .Section 99289, mean that the operator owns leases the equipment, establishes routes andfrequency-of service,reu~lates and collects fares, and otherwise controls theefficiency and.quality of the operation of the system, but doesnot require that operators of rolling stock be employees of apublic agency.

"OPERATOR"

99210. "Operator" means any.transit district, includedtransit district, municipal operator, included municipal opera,or,er transit development board.

"PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM"

99211. "Public transportation system" means any system ofan operator which provides transportation services to the general

public by any vehicle which operates on land or water, regardlessof whether operated separated from or in conjunction with othervehicles.

"R!DESHARING SERVICES"

99211.5. "Ridesharing services" means a comprehensive

organizational effort which is designed to reduce the number ofvehicles on the highways during peak travel periods within .adefined area by encouraging the planning and marketing of high-occupancy vehicle facilities, increases in the number ofpassengers per vehicle in vehicles used for ridesharing,alternative work schedules, and other transportation demandmanagement strategies among employers and commuters.

"SECRETARY"

99212. "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Business,

Transportation and Housing Agency.

-22-

029

~y CRZTY.R/A FOR ADMISSION OF~ TRANSIT OPEKATORS TO ELIGIBILITYFOR T~A FU~D~G ~"R-~J~-~- TO ~ 103

The foli~w~_ng criteria for a ~dmissicn of newo=erat=-s tc ~e st=~ c= elig~i!ity foro~ ~spcr~tion Deve!c~ ~t (SB 325}w~e adopted by ~e C~.~.{ss !On, bya vote cf 9-0,at i~ re~ar meeting cf December 19,-1979. Such

_: __i ~e r~ ~ he adopted by at leasteight vct~s ~der ~o~ 99207 (d) ~d 99285 (f)of ~e Caiifc~ia P,~!ic u~!ities C~e as ~ded ¯hy ~ 103.

A tr=-nsit sYs~=-u’se=-k’-ng desi~r.ation as an"imc!uded mumiclpa! operator" under Secticn S9207 (4)

of ~-.e P,.’b!!c Uti!i =-ies Code shall be ---. i_-d t3=e=~ ~ne fcl!cwing criteria:

1. The m-~nicipai system has beam. in ccnt:nucus.czeraticn f3r a min"~’~ period cf tl-_-~e ye=--’s.

2. ,~T.~e m’~unicima! sYsz=-m sha!!~have he.~ ~a.~,_!:_~!ef=r use by" the. g~nera! ,=ub_.ic dur:m.g ~e same~hree-ye=__ - per,c=. ¯

¯ ~ ~ ~ " " .~e¯ . ¯ ~- %- =--V = De_-.c~D’~xnc t~ls same e~-e th~e_.._e_---..o -3.~-~te~’s cDera~"-i~ g e.x~..e=ses sna!l

"-..~=; "-~ ~-=-~ 50 =ercent by one c_ mc_e

e ¯

o

The mu.~_icipal sYS~~m’s Sho~ Range Tr~--nsi u P̄lan

has been approved by the Los Angeles Co~=tyTransportation Comm/ssion.

030

r " -~ts of the Transportat/on Devel-.and reporting equlro.~_~t Act .and Section 15 of the Urban Mass Transportation

--.Notwithstanding ~he criteria numbered ~i),. (2}, and (3)above, a t=ansit system may be made eligible for TDAfunding ~ediately after its creak/on if At consistssubs~antia~ly of a reorganization or replacement of tran-sit system(5) whichwere previously e!igible for TDAa~ provides se_~ice substantially s~lar to se~vicewhichpreviously received TDA subsidies. ...

03~

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

ACTIVITY

Discussion Item to PMIC

Discussion Item to LACTC

Analysis of Policy Issues, FundingAlternatives, Eligible Services

Progress Reports TAC, BOS, F&PC and PMIC

DATE

March 20, 1991

March 27, 1991

April 2, 1991-May 3~, 1991

May

STAFF RECOMMENDATZON TO:

COMMZTTEES/COMMZSSZON

Technical’Advisory Committee

Bus Operations Subcommittee

Finance and Programming Committee

Planning & Mobility Improvement Committee

CoMmission

June ii, 1991

June 13, 1991

June 17, 1991

June 19, 1991

June 26, 1991

137

032

Attachment C

RECOMMENDED SERVICES OPERATED BYTHE CITY OF LOS ANGET~S

FOR INCLUDED MUNICIPAL OPERATOR FUNDING

City of Los Anqeles Services

DASH DowntownHarbor ShuttleBus Service ContinuationProgram (BSCP)

Route 147 San PedroRoute 203 Hollywood/Griffith Park ObservatoryRoute 413 Van NuysRoute 419 ChatsworthRoute 423 Newbury Park/EncinoRoute 430 Pacific PalisadesRoute 431 WestwoodRoute 437 Marina Del ReyRoute 438 Hermosa BeachRoute 448 Rancho Palos Verdes

033

July 3, 1991

M~40 TO: BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETING

FROM: JUDY WEISS

SUBJECT: "DRAFT" POLICY FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

ISSUE

The Private Sector Forum has requesteda review of the provi-sions included in the Los Angeles County Transportation Co~is-sion (LACTC) draft guidelines for the Private Sector InvolvementProcess in keeping with the. Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-tration (UMTA) Circular 7005.1. Specifically, this request: re-lates to issues regarding development anddocumentation of thelocal process for private enterprise participation required forLrMTA Sections 3 and 9 programs.

RECOMMENDATION

Thatthe BOS take the following actions: a) review PrivateSector Forum recommendations that have been consolidated withLACTC draft Private Sector InvolvementGuidelines forapplicability with the policy requirements of UMTA Circular7005.1 (see Attachment #1),.b) review letter from the CaliforniaBus Association (Attachment #2) for consideration of furtherapplicability with the policy requirements of UMTA, and c)approve draft guidelines for the Private Sector InvolvlementProcess.

RELATIONSHIP TO COMMISSION GOALS

The effectiveness of LACTC toconstructi~ely facilitate public/private service decisions, as it relates to maximum mobility perdollar expended, requires continued effort in the area of pri-vate sector participation.

BACKGROUND

The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) publishedpolicy and guidance on involvement of the private sector infederally assisted transportation plans and programs. Circular7005.1 "Docllmentation of Private Enterprise ParticipationRequired for Sections 3 and 9 Programs, "was issued December 5,1986, for clarification of the local process for implementingprivate enterprise participation, i

Los Angeles County818 west Seventh StreetTransportation Suite 1t00Commission Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel 213 623-1194 034


MEMO TO: BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETINGJuly-3,~ 1991Page Two

The Private Sector Forum was formed in 1987 in response to UMTACircular 7005.1 regarding the documentation of private enterpriseparticipation. The Forum was originally designed for: reqionalinformation exchange; reqional contracting opportunity announce-ments; and to satisfy the consultation procedures required in thelocal process for implementing private enterprise participation.

The Private Sector Forum, as a reqional body, has accomplished thefollowing:

¯ The development of a cost comparison process between privateand public sector operations.

Assistance in conducting an analysis of all public transitlines to determine if they could be operated more efficientlyby the private ¯ sector.

A consultation process between the private sector and publicsector during the development¯of new or significantlyrestructured transit service.

Currently, the Private Sector Forum continues to convene as a non-regional body under the auspices of theLos Angeles County Trans-portation Co~m.ission (LACTC). Also, LACTC has expanded the Pri-vate Sector Forum’s role to include the following:

¯ ¯ Review and co~ent on Private Enterprise sections of theShort Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) submitted in Los AngelesCounty.

In keeping with this expanded role, the Private Sector Forum isrequired by LACTC to ¯ constructively address policy and technicalissues regarding the locally developed criteria used in makingpublic/private service decisions.

COMPLIANCE WITH ¯LOCAL PROCESS

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is expected to certify that the local process for private enterpriseparticipation has been followed. SCAG will base its certificationon the LACTC’s assessment of compliance. Therefore, private sec-tor participation is essential to regulatory compliance with UMTACircular 7005.1.

PREPARED BY: JAMES C. PARKER

~~~IS ~.!~~!~~ge~ rTeamputy Executive Director

JW: JCP: dbB:SE.I - POLICY.PSF

¯ PROPOSEDLACTC POLICY

on thePRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

January 25, 1991

O36

AUTHORITY

In 1984, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass TransitAdministration (UMTA) published a policy statement discussing waysto increase opportunities for private providers to perform masstransportation and related services. The policy provisions wereaddressed in the UMT ACT Sections 3 (e) and 8 (e). Then in 1986,UMTA published additional documents which provided guidance togrant applicants and recipients on developing and documenting thelocal process for increasing the involvement of the privatesector.

PURPOSE

To address UMTA’s policy, the LACTC adopted the foIlowing policyin 1986 to provide policy direction and guidelines for publictransit operatorsin developing an appropriate private sectorinvolvement policy process. To further protect public operators’efforts, the LACTC revised the Proposition A DiscretionaryGuidelines in 1988 to prohibit recipients of Proposition ADiscretionary funding frombeing effectively precluded fromcontracting services in the event that an attempt is made to doso.

PROCEDURE

LACTC annually certifies that the local process has been followedbased on the LACTC’s assessment of the public operators’ docu-mented efforts to involve the private sector in providing serviceand support functions. The public operators’ docnmentation shouldaddress the LACTC’s key policy, elements which are discussed in thefollowing three sections:

(I) consultation process,(2) cost comparison methodology,(3) complaint procedure.

037

I. CONSULTATION PROCESS

i.i Early Notification

Public operators must include in the locally developed process apolicyto involve the private sector where service opportunitiesexist. As part of the policy, there must be a process to notifyand to Consult early with providers in plans involving new orrestructured service; periodic review of~exlsting service or majorcapital facilities. (See Appendix A for service definitions)

At a minimum, the LACTC requires that at the start of a technicalstudy or the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, thepublic operator uses LACTC’s list ofservice providers and noti,fies the private sector of the proposed project. The publictransit aqency considerinq new or restructured service, changes inmode or major capital facilities, should notify the private-sectordurinq the. initial staqes of the Short Ranqe Transit Planninqprocess to afford sufficient time for consultation with allinterested parties. This consultation must occur prior to finalSRTP’s beinq, submitted to LACTC for review and approval. Criteriato be used in makingpublic/private service decisions should beincluded in the notification sent to private providers.

Private providers responding to the public operator’s interestinquiry must be provided with all the relevant background informa-tion on the operating characteristics and parameters of the pro-posed project to developservice comments.. The private sectorcomments on the proposed project must be incorporated into thetechnical study Or the Short Range Transit Plan after being re-viewed and responded to by the public operator.

~ny public transit provider issUinq an RFPmust make known in theRFP their intent to submit a proposal to operate the service.Additionally, a fully allocated cost analysis should be performedby the public aqency and compared to other Drivate sector bidders.The results of this analysis and methodoloc~ used should be madepublic at the time the decision is announced.

1.2 Competitive Bidding

The final determination of whether the proposed service or supportfunctions are to be provided by the public or private provider canbe arrived at through a competitive process that must be a part ofthe public operators’ local process.

If there are impediments to holding the proposed service or sup-port functions out for competitive bidding, the public operatormust describe the impediments and measures taken to address theimpact of such impediments in the technical study or the ShortRange Transit Plan.

038

The public transit aqency responsible for selectinq a transitprovider to operate specified service, who is also a potentialprovider of this service, must include a qualified third party tomaximize objectivity durinq the selection process.

Recommendations made reqardinq the provision of~service by apublic transit aqency ~stemminq from the competitive procurementprocess), must be approved by the ~overning board, prior toservice implementation.

When a public transit a~ency has issued a Request for Propos~1(RFP) to operate specified service and elects to.perform theservice Within (inhouse), the service must be reconsidered by theqoverninq board for~competitive contractinq prior to the end ofthe period specified in the original RFP. ~

Any agreement ~o exercise option clauses relatinq to contrabtex£ension, must be approved by the governinq board (prior to theend of the contract period).

1.3 Private Sector Forum

Public operators must review the policy with the LACTC PrivateSector Forum, a locally established committee with the appropriatemembership to ensure that notification and early, consultation withprivateproviders are included in the implementation process.

Public operators must review all changes to policy and procedureswith the LACTC Private Sector Forum before incorporating them intothe locally developed process.

039

II. COST COMPARISON METHODOLOGY

2.1 Fully Allocated Cost

Public operators must include in the locally developed processanevaluation procedure that includes a methodology for making costcomparisons of all the fully allocated costs, excluding capitalcosts, which are attributable to the provision of a specificservice.

The fully allocated cost policy requires that all fixed and vari-able costs, and all direct and shared costs associated with thespecific service, i.e., total operating costs, are identified andcounted in the public operator’s cost comparisons. (See AppendixB for cost definitions). The intent of the policy is to effec-tively prohibit public or private entities from submittingbidprices lower than the actual cost ofproviding the specific ser-vice.

2.2 LACTC Cost Model

Public operators must select a cost model to be used in costcomparisons, which fairly states all costs associated with thespecific service. The LACTC three-variable cost model is a basicexample of how an accurate cost representation can be made for aparticular level and type of service by fully allocating allassociated operating expenses to three resources variables (vehi-cle miles, vehicle hours, and peak vehicles).

In addition to cost comparisons, public operators may includeother factors to be considered in the evaluation process: quality,experience, fleet characteristics, management capabilities, main-

tenance practices, etc.

2.3 Review of Cost Model

Public operators must review the selected cosZ model with theLACTC Private Sector Forum for comment prior to initiating costcomparisons. Public operators must annually review any proposedchanges and their potential impacts on cost representation withthe LACTC Private Sector Forum for Comment.

III. COMPLIANT PROCEDURE

3.1 Dispute Resolution

Responsive protests will be addressed by public operators throughan adopted complaint procedure that is theinitial step in theUMTA-required local dispute resolution process. (See Appendix for definitions of the types of "responsive protests").

3.2 Type-A Protest

In the case of a Type-a protest, a private service provider whohas participated in the planning and bidding process and believesthat the previously approved procedures were not followed, shouldbe required by the localprocedure to submit a complaint within 30days of occurrence. ~Blic operators should then respond asrequired by the local procedure, within 30 days from the receiptof the complaint.

If the complaintant finds the public operator’s responseunsatis~factory, then the complaint will be forwarded to the LACTC. Afterverifying that the local complaint procedure has been followed, .the LACTC will perform a review on which a final resolution will

¯ be based. If further local appeal is sought by the complaintant,the LACTC will request SCAG to ireview the complaint. If the localdispute resolution process~has been exhausted, the unresolvedcomplaint will be reviewed and resolved by UMTA.

3.3 .Type-B Protest

In the Case Of the Type-B Protest, unsolicited proposals toprovide service without public subsidy must be also addressed bypublic operators through the adopted complaint procedure, Thepublic operator’s response must be prepared on a timely basis andshould describe the decision and the factors considered.

A description andstatus of private sector complaints must beincluded in public operators~ documentation required annually indetermining compliance with UMTA policy and requirements.

The California Bus Association (CBA) as a representative private bus owners on issues of common interest (such as fosteringcontracting services and attempting to assure fair decisions onprivate vs. public issues), should be afforded the opportunity tofile responsive protests (complaints) with public operators as relates to the competitive procurement process (e.g., localconsultation, labor provisions, cost-comparisons, award criteria,etc.).

When a private service provider and the CBA both submit complaintsaddressinq non-compliance with the adopted local process reqardinqthe public transit provider, the two complaints will be combinedwhen mutually aqreed upon by the three parties.

041

Feldner RoadCalifornia 92668

93~0550 (213) 25~5924714) 634~879

BUS ASSOCIATION

/

818 West Seventh Street, Ste. 1100Los .&ngeles, CA 9001Y

Dear Hr. Parker,.

tB& wishes ~o take this o~portunity to hriefl9 c1arif9 in wr~tlng the

discussions our associatlon has been involved in regarding aspects of

the revised L~CTC guidelines for the region’s private sector involve-

ne~t process. .

The ~rivate sector forumfs ad hoc suhcoRm~tee meetings have produced

Presented herewith isa summar9 Of our~oomRents on guideline r~vi-

The L~CTC has always upheld a coRmon fullp a11ocated oost formula for

individual operators (TPH forRula) for cost coRpari$Onpurposes,

Thls~. however, does no~ address how operatorswould arrive at incre-

Rental cost increases or decreases for the sezvlce involved in compe-

titlve bi~di~g. ¯

In order .to fairl~ coRpare a~tual costs to ~e incurre~ ~ the pu~l~uoperator, ~he guideline should re~uire a fu11~ allocated methodology

to be used that would allow the cost for each function ~ot COntracted

Oat to ~e excluded froR the full~ a11ocated price,

This method would fuZl~ disclose how the opeEator, arrivedat the

elnoreRental ~ost ¯ for the servi~e, and polio~ hoards would thereb~ be

in a position to Rake informed deGisions on awarding competitive

If thi~ prooedure is not employed, the burden of proof falls on the

private sector tO document that certain indirect varla~le oosts havebeen disguised as eoverhead" or have otherwise been excluded in the

BID.

042

& me~hodolog~ ~hae clearl~ discloses a step dow~ fro~ the "fallwallo~ate~ cost will ensure £a~r d~sclosuze in the ~ost allooationproe.e~s.

~urther, multl-year bids would also in~lu~e a= In£1atio~ factor forac=uzate ~omparison purposes and operators ShOul~ not be allowed tosubmit ~ids, if the~ choose, after the bid dea~line date. This pro-

.oess, ¯outlined above, willavola the co~t~oversg that surrounde~ LongBeach Transit~s determination of its marginal cr incremental costs forthe downtown ~an shuttle service in comparison to pri~ate bids.

supports therecommendatlon that mll ~O~petitlve services, whether~perated b~ ~he pu~liu or private sector,.be ~egularl~ bid uu~. ina~uorda~ce with provisions of the RFP..

Operators in the regicm should review with the p~ivate sector in atimeiw manner (earl~ consultation) C~P service reguests so as mot

Yours

Pre~ld~4~t

oc: CBA Board of D/rectors

JUL 3 ’el 18:87TOTI:IL P.83

June 21, 1991

M~O TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - 7/11 MEETING

NEIL PETERSON

ON-BOARD ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY

ISSUE

Supplemental Socio-economic data is needed on transit riders toensure the mode choice transportation module is accurately re-calibrated.

DISCUSSION

The LACTC is currently participating in an origin and destina-tion survey with our neighboring County Commissions and STAG.The O&D survey is designed to update the the 1967 LARTS house-hold survey and enable the County Commissions and SCAG to meetthe CMP requirements. Furthermore, our survey is being coordi-nated with a statewide O&D survey effort .of 15,000 householdswhich is administered by Caltrans. The combined O&D Survey inthe SCAG region involves the survey of 18,700 households (3,000households by Caltrans and 15,700 households by SCAG Counties).Within Los Angeles County, 8,200 households will be fullysurveyed.

Given the LACTC proposed $9.6 billion ten-year rail developmentprogram, a key element.of the transportation modeling outputwill be transit patronage estimates. While the O&D survey isstatistically designed, to ensure an adequate number of transitusers will be surveyed, the magnitude of the LACTC projectedrail investments and the critical need for good ridership/farerevenue forecasts call for a "robust" sample of transit users.Therefore, an additional 460 on-board survey of bus riders isproposed to supplement the O&D household survey data. Attachedis the proposed questionnaire for the on-board survey (Exhib-it A). The questionnaire is designed to allow cross checks andwill ensure an accurate characterization of the potential tran-sit user. SCRTD has agreed to conduct on-board surveys on their

Los Angeles County818 West Seventh StreetTransportation Suite 1100Comnliosion Los Angeles. CA 9001

Tel 213 623-1194 044


MEMO TO: BOS - 7/11 MEETINGJune 21, 1991Page Two

buses and the Blue Line. To ensure a representative cross-section of riders are collected; muni operators are requested toalso conduct surveys On their bus lines. Exhibit B is a tabula-tion of the numbers of questionnaires each operator is requestedto complete.

PREPARED BY: RAYMOND K. MAEKAWAProject ManagerSoutheast. Area


Attachments

NP:RKM.dbB:SE.IBOSO&D.RKM

L~ne Number:

We need your answers to three questions to help us ~mprove ee~i~e to you. PLEASE FILLTHIS OUTWHILE YOU ARE ON THIS TRIP. Do not leave any of the queg~ blank. Your showers wig beconfidend~. THANK YOU.

1. At what bu~ stop o"14 you board THIS bus?

EXHIBIT A

How dld you get to THIS bus7

L Walked ( blocks}b Tronsferred from_RTO Oine #¢. Drovad. Woe drivan

[ ] o. Transferred from other bus system.) (,vmm: )

| | f. Other:

3. From where dld you come bef~o you got m~ THIS bus?

] ~. Homo [ ] b.W~ [ ] ¢.Sc~ [ ] d.Me~c~ [ ] e.Shopping [ ] f.Soci~ecrea~on [ ] g.Other

Address:

Nearest major cross street:

4. What type of fm dld you mo to got on THIS bu~? [Chec~ d that app,]

[ ] O. Transfer --[ ~ f~Regu~er ~y Pole

[ ) b. Cas~ket f~ of [ ] g. Mont~y Pm wlth

[ ) c. Saber Ci~zen Pa~e- [ ] h. Ha~c~ Pass

( J d. Student Pass [ ] I Other:,[ ] e. CollegeHoca~ Pass

Express Stomps

6. At what bm stop ~1 y~ go~g to get off THIS bu~?

6. After you got off THIS bus, you wl~:

( ] o.Welk ( Mocks) | | b.Trer~fer to RTD line (LOne [ ] a.Transfer to another bu~ system (system:

) [ ] c.DHve [ ] d.Be ddven) I If.Other:.

7. Where era you g~ng?

i Is.Home [ ]b.Wo~ [ )©.Soh0ol [ ]d.Medicai [ ]e.S~pping I )f.Soci~ecree~on [ ]g.Other

8. A~nual ho~ehokl

[ ] s.Less than t14,999 []b. $15,(X~ - 29,999 [ ] e. t30,~- 149,999 [ ] d. t~,~ or ~re

S. How many ~ ~g y~elf) aged 6 ~ o~r g~ ~ ~ ~eh~

( ILl [ lb. 2 [ ie. 3 [ ]d. 4 [ ie. 5or’mre

10. How m~y ~, ~ ~ lght ~e Me av~ebb to ~ y~ h~eh~

[ ]LO [ )b. 1 I ]~2 ( Jd. 3or~re

~ 1. b R~ b~seat ave,ably)

! J L Ve~ con~ [ I b. Conve~ent [ ] ¢. Somew~t ~ent( )d. Notat~eM ( ]e. Don~tk~w/Notsure

[ ] e. Nearest ~s ~ ~ t~ far ~wey. [ ] d. ~see do ~t e~w ~ on ~me.( ] b. Not e~gh ~ses ~ ~sh bourn. .[ ) e. ~ses e~ t~ crowd~.

[ ] c. Not e~oh

12. To wfdch ethnic g~oup do you belong?

[ ] 8. White [ ] b. !~ [ ] c. B~ack ! ] d. Asian/T’oc~fio Idmder[ ] ¯ Amedcan ~ Neuron [ )f. Other

13. Youroge? ,.Yoo~ 14. You~ex7 [ |o. Me~a []b. Fom~o

EXHIBIT B

ON-BOARD TRANSIT SURVEY FOR MODE CHOICE MODEL

Total Sample Target - 460 Completed Questionnaires

OPERATOR

SCRTD

Long Beach

Santa Monica

Montebello

Torrance

Gardena

Culver city

Norwalk

SUBTOTAL

Arcadia

La Mirada

Redondo Beach

Commerce

Claremont

TARGETS

360

20

20

.20

20

20

20

20

440

5

5

5

5

5465

047

July 5, 1991

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ~ 7/11/91 MEETING

DALE ROYAL

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) TRANSIT COMPONENT

Attached for your review is a revised draftof the Congestion¯ Management Programtransit standards established for frequency,routing, and coordination of transit services on the CMP highwayand roadway system.

Please pay particular attention-to Table 4-4, which outlines a newstrategy for assigning distinct transit routing and frequencystandards to each monitored congested corridor. Brad McAllester,LACTC, and the CMP consultants~will be available for questions atthe July llth BOS meeting.

BM:dr

Los A.geles County818 West Seventh StreetTransportation Suite 1100Commission Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel 213 623-1194 048Leading the Way to 6rearer Mobility

DRAFTC~=-APTER 4

CMP T.~iNSIT COMPONENT

4.1 II%’TRODUCTION

The Congestion Management Program requires that transit standardsbe established for frequency and routing of public transit, and forthe coordination .of transit services provided by separateoperators. The purpose of this requirement is to make mosteffective use of public transit service as an alternative to theautomobile with an emphasis to alleviate congestion on the CMPhighway and roadway system.

While Los Angeles County is known for its extensive highway androadway system, there is also an extensive public transportationsystem provided by many operators as well. This system includes:

o Rail service. An extensive rail system is currentlybeing developed for Los Angeles County. This system willinclude a combination light-rail, subway, commuterrail,and possibly mono-rail services. The Metro BlueLine route is now the first operational segment of thissystem, providing light-rail service to over 25,000 dailypassengers from Downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach.Other portions of this system are currently either underconstruction or in the planning and design stage.

o Fixed route bus service. In addition to the SouthernCalifornia Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), the regionaltransit operator, there are eight municipal fixed-routeoperators that receive regional funding. These operatorsare Culver City, Santa Monica, LongBeach, Montebell0,Norwalk, Gardena, Torrance, and Commerce. The City andCounty of Los Angeles, and Foothill Transit provide majorlocal and express services as well. In addition, o~er 50cities provide community and shuttle services. Together,on an average weekday, these systems provide service toover 1.5 million passengers on over 250 separate routes.

o Paratransit service. Paratransit services provide demandresponse, door-to-door service, generally requiring aminimum advance notice. 70 operators provide serviceeither to the general public or specialized paratransitservices (i.e., service to elderly and handicappedpersons).

4.2 CMP TRANSIT MONITORING NETWORK

4.2.1 Reason For A Transit Monitoring Network

There are a wide range of transit services in Los Angeles County,providing a mixture of local, regional, and special servicetransportation. While all transit services are an importantcomponent of the countywide transportation system, a subset oftransit services with potential to relieve traffic congestion onthe CMP Roadway Network has been identified and is the focus of theCMPTransit Component. This subset of transit services is referredto as the CMP Transit Monitoring Network, shown in Figure 4-1 andlisted in Table 4-1.

Ninety (90) routes which currently provide services on the CMPRoadway Network (i.e, actual road segments and/or parallel travelcorridor) are included in the CMP Transit Monitoring Network. Themajority of a transit route or at least five miles of the routebeing on the CMP Roadway Network was used as the benchmark fordetermining which services to include in the transit monitoringnetwork. Also included in the transit monitoring, network are theMetro Blue Line and several bus feeder to rail station services.It may also be appropriate to include inter-county commuterservices (e.g., Amtrak commuter rail, Orange and San BernardinoCounty Express Busservices) in the CMP Transit Monitoring Network.

The purpose of monitoring the transit network is to gauge theeffectiveness of transit in relieving traffic congestion in travelcorridors of regional significance. Transit monitoring effortswill provide important information on the routing, frequency,Capacity and time competitiveness of existing services relative tothe automobile. The transit monitoring network can also serve asa planning tool to identify potential gaps in the current transitsystem, as well as opportunities to make transit a more effectivetraffic mitigation strategy.

The transit monitgring network is likely to change over time due toimplementation .of new and/o~ restructured services aimed atimproving the effectiveness of transit as traffic mitigations~rategy. Implementation of new rail services can be expected toimpact the CMP Transit Monitoring Network. For example, railservices with higher people-moving capacity may replace fixed-routebus services with lower capacity. Also, if other roadways areadded to the CMP Roadway Network, transit routes which serve theseroadways would be added to the CMP Transit Monitoring Network.

In future years, pending completion of the first CMP transitreporting and monitoring cycle, it may be appropriate to monitortransit route segments as opposed to the entire route. The intentof monitoring route se~,ents would be to focus attention on transitservices which overlay the CMP Roadway Network. CMP transitreporting forms, discussed below, are in a format that can be usedto report and monitor transit services on either a route or routesegment basis.

FIGURE 4-1

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT MONITORING NETWORK

051

FIGURE 4-1

July 1, 1991

BOS Agenda/Minutes - July 11, 1991boardarchives.metro.net/Other/BOS/BOS_2_026.pdf · 2005. 1....

Documents

Transcript of BOS Agenda/Minutes - July 11, 1991boardarchives.metro.net/Other/BOS/BOS_2_026.pdf · 2005. 1....