HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/06/09 Item 17
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
17
Meeting Date
6-9-81
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /DJ/1.J Approving Agreement with San Diego Transit Corporation
for FY 1981-82 for Transportation serVi~e)
SUBMITTED BY: Development Services Administrator ~)~LI (4/5ths Vote: Yes___ No~)
San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) has submitted for Council's consideration the attached
package of information regarding transit service in Chula Vista for FY 1981-82. SOTC's
claim against Chula Vista's Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocation is estimated
to be $106,740 for service provided by Routes 29, 32 and 100. It is my
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution approving the agreement for SOTC service
in Chula Vista for FY 1981-82.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The SDTC claim for FY 1981-82 in the amount of $106,740 compared with the FY 1980-81
amount of $34,359 is an increase of 210 percent.
The following comparison shows the cost difference for each SOTC route in Chula Vista
for FY 1980-81 and FY 1981-82.
Route
FY 1980-81
Cost
FY 1981-82
Cost
29
32
100
$ 64,393
(121,612 )
91,578
$ 34,359
$ 39,941
59,957
6,842 (This route discontinued 7/26/81.)
$106,740
Total
Many factors affect the cost of service to Chula Vista for SDTC service, including total
miles operated, gross cost per mile, passengers carried, passenger revenue credit, and
federal subsidy credit. Under the existing contractural arrangement with SDTC, the miles
operated and cost per mile generally are constant for the year, but "passengers carried"
are projected figures which are subject to adjustment during the fiscal year based on
actual passenger counts done by SANDAG. Since we will be credited an estimated $0.6960 per
passenger under the FY 1981-82 contract, variation in the number of passengers carried
can cause a large adjustment in the contract cost.
The main reasons for the higher cost for SDTC service during FY 1981-82 are:
1. SDTC's gross cost per mile will be $3.6441, an increase of $0.54 or 17.4 per cent.
2. An increase in the cost of Route 32 service from a credit situation of ($121,612)
to an estimated $59,957 for FY 1981-82.
The critical factor affecting the cost for FY 1981-82, aside from cost per mile, is the
projection of "passengers carried". The cost for Route 29 service has actually decreased
for FY 1981-82 to $39,941 from the current cost of $64,393 due to increased ridership
Ftr~11~3 (Rev. 11/79)
Page 2, Item 17
Meeting Date 6-9-81
and higher fares. Similarly the cost for Route 32 service is increased substantially
because of decreased ridership projections.
SDTC submitted an initial contract to Chula Vista for FY 1981-82 service on May 7, 1981.
This contract contained an operating cost for Route 32 based on two important assumptions:
1. Continuing to provide fifteen (15) minute headways (service frequency); and
2. Passengers credit based on current Route 32 ridership of 462,819 persons.
The Transit Coordinator and I disagreed with both of these assumptions because:
1. When the San Diego Trolley begins operating, Route 32 will no longer operate
between the border and downtown San Diego, but will terminate at the 24th Street
Trolley Station in National City. The function of Route 32 will change from a
regional route to a local route serving a portion of the South Bay area. We
believe that a 30 minute headway on Route 32, instead of the existing 15 minutes,
is adequate for service in Chula Vista, since many existing Route 32 passengers
will ride the Trolley both to Chula Vista and to downtown.San Diego. A map of
the new Route 32 is attached for Council's information.
2. SANDAG estimates a 34 percent reduction in existing ridership on Route 32 when
the Trolley begins operation. A passenger loss of this magnitude would mean an
increase in the operating cost to Chula Vista for Route 32 of over 500 percent.
Therefore, because of these planning and cost considerations relative to Route 32, we
asked SDTC to submit a contract for FY 1981-82 that increased headways on Route 32 from
15 to 30 minutes. In addition, passenger estimates have been reduced to 247,230 instead
of the 462,819 contained in the initial contract. Because of these changes, we believe
that the contract cost of $106,740 is realistic and should minimize major mid-year
adjustments by SDTC.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 1981-82 SDTC claim against Chula Vista's TDA allocation will leave a reserve balance
of about $40,098.
Chula Vista TDA allocation (FY 1981-82)
SCOOT claim (Chula Vista Account)
SDTC claim
Balance
$1,045,000
- 898,162
- 106,740
$ 40,098
Wt1G: vt/DS-035
':ne:! of
~ by
M (i1uh V;c~j;o (>!:~'Jr~,:,J
! Dated' " - '9~ fL
~
_....-.__.''''........-:.....,.c...:.'
/ o4.q 3
.
San Diego Trallsit
WE'RE GOING YOUR WAY'
100 SIXTEENTH STREET
MAILING ADDRESS: p,o, Box 2511
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112
ADMINISTRATIVE 714.238.0100
CHARTER 714.238.0500
d~:a~h; :"J~;~0004
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92012
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Attached is a copy of our proposed service agreement for
FY 82. As usual, because of the filing deadline mandated by
State law, we are asking you ro approve this agreement before
we have an approved budget. Once we have our approved budget
and several months' operating experience we will be back with
a "First Amendment" for your approval, with any necessary
adjustments including service levels or routing changes you
may desire.
You should note the service adjustments to be effective
July 26, 1981. Specifically, they are:
1. Route 100 - Eliminated.
2. Route 32 - Extended to "B" Street LRT Station.
Frequency reduced fro~ 15 minutes to 30 minutes
at the request of Chula Vista staff.
The number of passengers used to determine the revenue
credit for Routes 29 and 32 is based on current ridership.
Adjustments, if any, will be made on the "First Amendment"
when new passenger counts will be available.
Your approval of this proposed agreement at your earliest
convenience will be appreciated. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
Q' ~erely,
.~ /. Lv ~
Ri hard A. Murphy ~~
Manager of Planning & SChe~ing
RA1'1/LSC/ cm
Attachments
{Ct-/93