Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/02/21 Item 08R E V I S E D CITY OF CHULA,VISTA Item No. 8 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT For meeting of 2-21-78 ITEM TITLE Resolution 9'O//•'Supporting a Method of Allocation of Section 5 UMTA Funds SUBMITTED BY Director of Public works/City Engineer ~,~' ~~~~ ,; ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO ) Funds from Federal Urban Mass Transit (UMTA) Section 5 Program are annually available to the San Diego area to principally offset transit operating deficits. For the next fiscal year, $7,478,000 will be tion to San Diego Transit Corporation, North and the City of Chula Vista (contingent upon Under Federal law, it is the responsibility formula or method of allocation of Section 5 transit operators. At the CPO Board meeting allocation methods will be considered. available for alloca- County Transit District, UMTA certification). ~f CPO to determine the funds among eligible on February 2~, 1978, The existing approved formula directs that 80 percent of the revenue available from Section 5 funds be distributed in proportion to rev- enue passengers carried and the remaining 20 percent be distributed in proportion to their revenue miles of service provided. AGENCY RECOf1MENDATIONS At this time, the three primary transit agencies involved have each made recommendations to CPO. The following is a summary of the various positions on Section 5 allocation formula. 1. Chula Vista Transit (CVT)- On July 5, 1977, the Chula Vista City Council supported allocation formula based on 50 percent revenue passengers and 50 percent revenue miles. About a wJR:ph (BYoo1) EXHIBITS Agreement Resolution x Ordinance Plat Notification List Other Tabled ~ 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT See Report __ STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1) Approve resolution which calls for the allocation of Section 5 UMTA funds based on a 50/50 split between revenue passengers and revenue miles for the coming fiscal year and direct the City's CPO Representative to vote accordingly on February 27, 1978. (2) Forward resolution to CPO for their information, prior to BOARD%COMMI~S ON' REC07MM~NDATION A P P R O V~ ll by the ~~~~ ;~ COUNCIL ACTION City Cou~.ci1 ` of Chula Vista., Co.~.ifo~°nla ~ated.......~.~.....-~ /.-....7.~ ...................« -r, %fA, AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 Supplemental Page 2 month or so ago, the Chula Vista staff directed a letter to CPO indicating that since the Council's decision in July there has been no new information or conditions which would indicate to them a need for a change. Therefore, we indi- cated to CPO that we see no reason why the City Council would alter their support for this recommendation. Since our letter, however, MTDB has changed their position and we now think it is appropriate for the Council to adopt a specific position by resolution in time for the February 27th CPO meeting. 2. San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) - SDTC has taken a position in support of the 100 percent allocation based on total passengers served. Very briefly, their rationale is that the purpose of transit is to serve people and the best way to see whether people are served is to count the number of passengers. Therefore, they state that an allocation based on passengers is the most appropriate formula. A look at Table 1 reveals that a distribution of available Section 5 funds by total passengers provides the greatest allocation to San Diego Transit. It is possible that this had some in- fluence on their recommendation. 3. Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) - I have been told that this board at the February 13th meeting voted on an allocation based upon 100 percent revenue passengers. It might be noted that the MTDB staff recommendation was t6 support the continued use of the existing regional formula; that is, 80 percent revenue passengers and 20 percent revenue miles. 4. North County Transit District (NCTD) - CPO adopt a Section 5 allocation based revenue miles and revenue passengers. division of funds on a north/south spl and recommend that each area establish how its funds are spent. NCTD recommends that on a 50/50 split between They also recommend a it based on population its own rules as to 5. Comprehensive Planning Organization Committees - The CPO Inter- modal Transportation Coordinating Committee has recommended a continuation of the 80/20 formula. The Transit Coordination Subcommittee did not take a position on this matter. 6. County of San Diego - County staff has stated that they will recommend to the Board of Supervisors a delay of the vote by the CPO Board on February 2~~th and an allocation of Section 5 funds first on the bais of the operators' budgetary needs and if not then on an 80/80 split, with a special allocation given to Chula Vista, due to its financial hardship status. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded first that each operator is recommending a formula which is in its own interest. The MTDB Board has taken a position (5-2) which supports San Diego Transit and urban transit improve- ments at the expense of service expansion. Each formula has its advantages and disadvantages and the 50/50 formulas which gives equal credit for passengers and services provides for Chula Vista the incentive to increase ridership as well as the incentive for the provision of expanded services in order to attract additional riders at the same time. It should be noted that Chula Vista would get more money on the 100 percent revenue miles formula but this would not provide incentive to increase ridership or make our service more efficient. Although it was not discussed in this report, there are other al- location formulas being considered; one which involves performance indicators and one which involves a combination of passenger miles. Neither of these formulas are ready this year, but may be considered in future years. ~~ TABLE 1 FISCAL IMPACT OF CHULA VISTA TRANSIT CERTIFICATION INCREASE/DECREASE INCREASE/DECREASE SDTC LOSS ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT CVT FROM EXISTING WITH CVT FROM EXISTING DUE FORMULAS CERTIFICATION 80/20 FORMULA CERTIFICATION 80/20 FORMULA TO CVT 1. Existing 80/20 2. APIA 50/50 3. 100 Passengers '!. 100 Miles $6,252 $1,226 5,870 1,608 6,506 972 5,235 2,243 $(382) $382 254 (254) (1,017) 1,017 $6,147 $1,152 $180 -- -- -- 5,721 1,533 224 $(426) $381 $45 6,431 897 150 284 .(254) (30) 5;p10 2,169 299 (1,137) 1,017 120 $ (105) (149) (75) (225) Note: All figures in $1,000'se Table courtesy of MTDBo TABLE 2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE FGR~~IULAS ALTERNATIVE FORf~1ULAS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. 80%/20% Provides incentive to increase ridership . Gives some credit for providing service . Does not by itself re- quire service cutbacks , by any operator . Does not by itself re- quire fare increases by any operator . Existing formula used for the last two years . Provides maximum re- gional ridership . ITCC supports . SDTC supports 2. 50%/50% Gives equal credit for carrying passengers . Gives equal credit for providing service . Recommended by APTA . NCTD supports . CVT supports 3. 100% Passengers . Provides large incentive to increase ridership to maximum potential . Does not by itself require any regional service cut- backs . Penalizes new systems that are developing patronage . NCTD disapproves its use . CVT disapproves its~use . Does not emphasize carrying passengers .. Would result in a reduction in regional ridership . Would contribute to in- creased fares by SDTC . Would contribute to cutting existing service by SDTC . Contributes to increased contract cost `to small cities within P1TDB area . SDTC disapproves its use . Heavily penalizes new systems which haven't developed full ridership potential -1- „Uiil. i~~u~u ~ERNATIVE FORMULAS 4. 100% Miles Table courtesy of MTDB. ADVANTAGES . Does not by itself require any regional fare increases DISi1DVANTAGES . Penalizes rural systems with 1 o~ti~ "turnover" rate . Uoes not provide incen- tive to expand service to low mobility groups in suburban areas . Provides maximum regionwide NCTD disapproves ridership . CVT disapproves its use . Places emphasis on carrying passengers . SDTC supports . Provides incentive to expand Does not provide incentive service to ne~~J areas to increase ridership . Emphasizes providing high Contributes to severe ser- levels of service to attract vice cutbacks on SDTC new ridership . Contributes to fare in- . Does not penalize systems creases for SDTC with long trip lengths . Causes reduction in region- . NCTD supports wide ridership . Contributes to increased contract service costs to small cities wit(~in MTDB area . Provides no incentive to in- crease a system's efficiency and effec~iveness ___ __ SDTC disapproves its use -2- ~- February 14, :!978 '!'he .Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista .- City Hail ~'~ 276 4t1~. Avenue Chu]_a Vista, Ca 92010 _ -r~ ,~ Gent amen: ~t i a 3•~ V t This month, the Beard of the Comprehensic•e Plaru~ing Organization is cllar.ged with the responsibility of equally and fairly estal:lishing ar. L'.I7.'1'.A. Section 5 a'_locatioa formula for transit operators in t?~e San Jiegc region. At tha .7anua.ry Z1eP_t1r1~' of the C.P.O. Transit Coordination Sub-Conlnitter~, San Diego Transit Corporation (S.D.T.C'.), NoLth County Transit District (r1.C.T.D.), and Chula `:lsta Transit (C. J.T.) were to sr~bmit written r~comnlendations on Section 5 mounds allocation. ~.D.T.C. made no forr.-~ai recommendation but gladly accepted :I.C.T.D. and C.V..~'. r.ecommenda*_ions for review. This maneuver allowed S.D.T.C. to review rI.C.T.D. anc; G.V.T. re.:ommendatior_s while preparing a formula which was then submi_ttcd direct,.y to the C.P.O. Board, T~~ithout a review and comment by N.C.T.U., C.z7.T., or the C.P.Q. staff. Section S frx~?ds were assigned to San Diego t;eunty on a federal formilla used on population and population densiL-y, The law states oach responsible Metropolitan Planning Agency, in our case C,P.O., shall then divide the funds among aligi_ble cperators. As of this date only San Diego Transit. {a munici_pa1 system ocaned by the City of San Diego) and N.C.T.D. ar.e eligible. Chula Vista is atteTptinb to b^come eligible. T~niile tale pct states these funds are fOr the develop^leizL of trar_sit systems the forr;ula adopted by the C.P.O, Board st: or:gly fa.~ors t??e subsidization of an older system. There is available $7,1+7~i,(i00 in I~19 for *_ransit operatianal assistance. The formula adopted b=~ C.P.O. , weiohi:ed i0;'' oll revenue passengers and 2~?% On reVE?lll!e clil_~.s, 1+'Oliln ~i.Je i~.:~.'~.~•'. Slyl5l,t'.'l' Or ~bCS1t _~~%r OY Lhe Fll'idS, the t3.C.T,D. service area holds so;se 2~% of file County's population. The for.r:!i1a first prcpo~ed 5v rr,~ i;.'P.O. staff \`.C.T'.U and others was a 50 weight. to re~~~enue ~:usscrgers avid ,:. 50'~ weight t~~ revenue rl:iles. tJhzle 1-a?.l.ing sYl~r.t of a stra:igh~: population formula it is r_los~~r to a populati~~n split of the ~ilnds. State transportat~.:u ai.d, I..T.F., is based cll r~opul.- at iorl. 1~,.~C~ ~ .~~'~~p r ~~ ~~ Cor_t . .. . ~~~,~e.!.-~ -z- San Diego Transit has stated that if the 50:50 formula was adopted there would be a large cut back in service and/or a large increase in contract costs to cities other than San Diego (S.D.T.C. contracts with nearby cities and the County for service and is paid by the other agencies' L.T.F. monies. This occurs because San Diego Transit is a municipal operation and not a District). This threat is grossly exaggerated as the $426,246 less they would receive under a 50:50 formula represents just over 1% of their operating budget. The impact of this 1.4% of their budget should have little or no impact on contracting agencies. The service provided is just as important as passengers carried. In the following, N.C.T.D. will restate its recommendations and discuss the recommendations,then review the S.D.T.C. proposal. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1 - N.C.T.D. recommends that the C.P.O. Board of Directors adopt a section 5 allocation based on 50% revenue miles and 50% revenue passengers, rather than the present 80% revenue passengers, 20% revenue miles allocation or S.D.T.C. 100% total passengers formula. Recommendation 2 is to divide the funds on a North-South split based on population and allow each area to establish its own rules as to how its funds are spent. The financial and institutional conditions of the South County are unique while the North County has a clear guideline. DTSCIISSTnN: N.C.T.D. supports the 50% revenue passengers, 50% revenue miles for specific reasons. N.C.T.D. staff and Board has analyzed several methods of allocation and the intent of the Federal Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, to wit: "To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to provide additional assistance for the Development of comprehensive and coordinated mass transportation systems both public and private, in metropolitan and other Urban areas, and for other purposes." It is clear that the Act is to help develop compreh- ensive transportation systems. If a 100% total passengers formula proposal were adopted it is clear that improved area service could not be established. N.C.T.D is an efficient, well run system operated with fiscal and public service responsibility. A recent survey of transit systems in the United States indicated 4,712 riders per month per bus with one bus available for every 3,831 persons. N.C.T.D. averaged 5,042 riders per bus and one bus for 4,333 persons. The purpose of transit is to carry people. N.C.T.D. has been adding 1,000,000 new transit passengers a year to County ridership, a greater than 20% passenger growth rate per year * The North San Diego County Transit District service area now holds some 22% of the County's population, but receives under the present 80:20 formula, only 15% of Section 5 allocations. A 100% total passenger formula would give N.C.T.D. approximately 12% of the allocation. A 50:50 formula would give N.C.T.D. approximately 20% of Section 5 funds, an amount somewhat less than its service population proportions. Section 5 funds are allocated to the region on the basis of population and population density. N.C.T.D. strongly feels its success warrants fair play and support by the C.P.O. Board of Directors. * (FY 76 - 3,].55,299, FY 77 - 4,129,413, FY 78 (at current rate) - 5,150,000) - 3 - REVIEW OF S.D.T.C. 100% PASSENGER FORMiJLA S.D.T.C. stated that "the present formula rewards an operator for running as many miles as possible ..." This is not true. The present formula is weighted most heavily towards revenue passengers. S.D.T.C. fails to clarify a number of other important points. While it is true that N.C.T.D. operates more miles per passenger than S.D.T.C., transit costs are accrued on an hourly basis for both operators. Also N.C.T.D. provides a much higher system speed than S.D.T.C.'s. A more realistic method of comparing operators is by measuring passenger carrying ability through the passengers per hour performance indicator. S.D.T.C. carries 34.5 passengers per hour. N.C.T.D. presently carries 20.5 passengers per hour. If this is taken in conjunction with the nearly $30.00 per hour operating cost for S.D.T.C. versus $17.50 per hour operating costs for N.C.T.D., it can be seen that S.D.T.C. needs the greater subsidy to defray the cost of an expensively managed system. S.D.T.C. wants a subsidy based on simple financial need, even if it penalized operators who maintain realistic wage and cost effectiveness. It should also be noted that N.C.T.D. has been growing at 20% rate per year versus S.D.T.C.'s stagnant position over the last two years. Another point which should be clarified is the use of revenue passengers and revenue miles rather than total passengers. S.D.T.C. would, in effect, by using total passengers, draw a double subsidy for more than 30% of its riders because S.D.T.C. has over 30% of its total passengers as transfers. This compares to 15% for N.C.T.D. Such accounting practices can cause transit operators to pay little attention to or create transfers in order to double count passengers. This would be a dis-service to the passenger who must transfer. N.C.T.D. policies have been to reduce or eliminate transfers where possible. If 100% revenue passenger formula were used S.D.T.C. would receive only 83.1% of Section 5 funds and N.C.T.D would get 16.8%. This is compared to 87.7% S.D.T.C.,'12.3% N.C.T.D. if total passengers were used. An analysis of the two tables provided by S.D.T.C, in its January 20 package to C.P.O. raises an interesting question. The difference between the 80:20 and 50:50 allocation as stated by S.D.T.C. is $426,246 which represents 1.4% of their operating budget (Table I). Yet, in Table II the additional mileage charge to independent contracting cities, because of this difference, is 2.5%. Based on differences in costs between the 50:50 formula and the 100% total passengers formula, all but three cities would realize monetary gains with 50:50 versus 100% passengers. A minor reduction of funds would be the effect on a few cities. For example, La Mesa'a allocation would be reduced by only $69.00 per week. It is hard to see how this small reduction would impact service at all, let alone greatly reduce it as indicated by S.D.T.C. If S.D.T.C. were to lose riders it certainly would not be caused by these adjustments. Where the additional 1.1% goes, N.C.T.D. has not been able to ascertain. We should subsidize people rather than financial problems of S.D.T.C. Residents who live outside the City of San Diego ar.e being forced to - 4 - subsidize San Diego's S. D.T.C. system. N.C.T.D. does not advocate a 100% miles allocation because it could lead to misuse, just as would S.D.T.C.'s 100% passenger allocation proposal. S.D.T.C. is asking most jurisdictions in the County to sacrifice their fair share of money to keep S.D.T.C. afloat. Fair allocation on a 50% revenue miles 50% revenue passengers basis would result in a healthy balance of promoting transit growth and efficient mass transit service. We ask that you support the 50:50 formula in the interest of fair play and future implications on other fund sharing programs with the City of San Diego. Sincerely, .J~ DOUGLAS M. AVIS Chairman of the North San Diego County Transit Development Board DMA:JJ ~80:2~, 50:50, 100% PASSENGER COST FORMULAE COMPARISON Additional (I)Adclitional SDTC i (2) ff Section 5 Mileage Cost n Di erence Section 5 on Money based based on 50:50 Difference Change from on Change Formula Reduction $0:20 to 100% from 80:20 of 1.4% (2.8~ per Passenger to 50:50 Mile) E1 CAJON -5,000 4,500 -9,500 +4,000 LA MESA 2,000 5,600 -3,600 -2,000 NATIONAL CITY -16,000 10,600 -26,600 +11,000 CHULA VISTA SDTC -20,000 6,700 -26,700 CVT 54,000 -0- 54,000 36,000 TOTAL 34,000 6,700 .27,300 -23,000 IMPERIAL BEACH 1,000 1,700 -700 -2,000 CORONADO 5,000 7,300 -2,300 -3,000 DEL MAR 1,000 500 +500 -0- COUNTY 36,000 39,000 +14,000 -29,000 (1)This column shows an equal distribution of the 1.4% reduction of S.D.T.C. current operating budget. (2)It should be pointed out that all but two cities would lose funds on a 100% passenger basis.