HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/06/15 Item 14COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 14
Meeting Date 6/15/82
ITE TITLE: Resolution /~~~d'Approving Agreement With San Diego Transit
Corporation (SDTC) for Transit Serv'c During FY 1982-83
SUB ITTED BY: Development Services Administra~ /5ths Vote: Yes No x )
ii
San Diego Transit Corporation's FY 1982-83 servic agreement with Chula Vista
is o provide transit service through Chula Uista with Routes 29 and 32. The
cos of this service, which is subject to adjustment later in the year, is
estimated to be $153,275. This cost is a 53% increase over the FY 1981-82
cos of $99,898 for Routes 29 and 32. The cost for these two routes
rep esents a combined net cost per passenger of $.36, and a combined net cost
per mile of $1.00. Despite the increase in cost compared with this fiscal
yea the Transit Coordinator and I believe that it still is cost effective
for Chula Vista to contract with SDTC for this service. Therefore, it is my
RE~MMENDATION: That Council approve the FY 1982-83 agreement with
Sa Diego Transit Corporation for transit service in Chula Vista.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Th~ increase in cost for service through Chula Vista during FY 1982-83 is
at ributed primarily to the following:
- Reduction in revenue passengers on both Routes 29 and 32, based on
updated revenue passenger estimates by SDTC on both routes.
- Reduced Federal subsidy credits of approximately 1/3 due to cut backs
in "Section 5" funds.
Tw~ cost components of the agreement have been reduced compared with this
ye is agreement;
- The SDTC gross cost per mile has been reduced from $3.6441 to
$3.5415, about 3%. SDTC attributes this reduction to lower fuel
costs and to "economies" made within SDTC.
- Capital cost has not been included in the FY 1982-83 agreement.
Th net cost for Route 29 for FY 1982-83 is $78,141, an increase of 95% over
th's year's net cost of $39,941. The net cost for Route 32 for FY 1982-83 is
$7 ,134, an increase of 25% over this year's net cost of $59,957. The primary
re son the cost for Route 29 increases a higher percentage than Route 32 is
Page 2, Item 14
Meeting Date 6/15/82
due to a greater percentage decrease in projected revenue passengers on
Rou e 29 for next fiscal year. According to SDTC, this reduction in revenue
pas engers is based upon current ridership on both Routes 29 and 32.
Reg rding Route 32, we compared the cost of San Diego Transit operating this
roue and SCOOT .operating this service between Palm Avenue Station and the
"H" Street Station in Chula Vista. At this time it is still cost effective
for Chula Vista to contract with SDTC for Route 32 service. Based on SDTC
cos s and SCOOT gross costs for FY 1982-83, the net cost per mile for SDTC to
ope ate Route 32 is $.94 compared with $1.55 for SCOOT. There are two main
rea ons why the cost advantage rests with SDTC:
Acc
Nov
wil
A y
Cou
FIS
app
acc
par
Chu
- the Federal subsidy per mile and per passenger that is credited
Chula Vista for Route 32; and
- more revenue passenger credit due to SDTC's higher fare than CVT.
~rding to the SDTC agreement, we may notify SDTC on or before July 1,
ember 1, and April 1 of any service change we want to make, and this change
I be made effective 90 days after these dates.
epresentative of SDTC will be in attendance to answer any questions the
~cil may have.
AL IMPACT: The FY 1982-83 SDTC claim against Chula Vista's TDA
rtionment will leave a reserve balance of approximately $12,500 in our
unt. This amount includes the $80,000 for a capital reserve submitted as
of the SCOOT FY 1982-83 TDA claim. This balance is computed as follows:
a Vista TDA Apportionment (FY 1982-83)
Claim (Chula Vista Account)
SDTIC Claim
Ballance
WMC~:dI/DS027, DS037
WP 0084T
,:
~;
$1,129,286
- 963,515
- 153,275
$ 12,496