The URL can be used to link to this page

6 23 09 Transit Study Update_Work Session MaterialsEconomic Development Director Dave Heiar has provided material for the June 23, 2009, 5:30 p.m. Work Session on the Transit Study Update. This Work Session will be held at the City Council Chambers at the Historic Federal Building. There will be a meal at 5:00 p.m. in Room 250. As David's memorandum states, selecting a preferred service option will be the primary goal for this Work Session. I do need to point out that Chapter 5 of the material deals with potential funding options. The City's Fiscal Year 2010 budget has X1,161,393 of City money from the General Fund to spend on the Transit System. The report identifies that there are three local sources of funding, General Fund, Local Transit Levy and Hotel/Motel Tax, amongst other sources. It is important to note that the use of any of these three sources has the same net effect on the local taxpayer in that the City's General Fund has many funding sources, including the Hotel/Motel Tax and Property Taxes. Therefore, using any of these three options is still using the City's General Fund. Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM/jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager David Heiar, Economic Development Director °T Michael Van Milligen, City Manager F®M: David Heiar, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Transit Study Update for Council Worksession on June 23 ®AT'E: June 16, 2009 BACKGR®UN® Attached is Technical Memorandum 3 prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. as part of the Transit study for the City of Dubuque. A.T. Stoddard will meet with the Council on June 23 at 5:30 p.m. to review the contents of this Technical Memorandum. ®ISCUSSI®N There will be a total of four Technical Memorandums presented as part of the contracted study: Each memorandum will serve as a working draft of information and recommendations. The final report will be a compilation of the four revised memorandums. This memorandum is divided into several chapters, each with a different emphasis. Chapter 2 offers four potential service options in addition to organizational options. As the consultant moves forward with this study, it would be helpful if the Council could determine which of these options, and which variations within that option, best meet Dubuque's needs. By narrowing this scope, the consultant can focus on tailoring this option for our community. Following the worksession, the consultant will take the chosen service option and further evaluate specific variations that can make this option most functional for our community. Selecting a preferred service option will be the primary goal for this work session. Chapter 2 also presents potential organizational options including sharing services with the RTA and technology improvements. Chapter 3 focuses on marketing opportunities to promote the revamped transit system. It should be noted that the current Keyline budget does not include funding for marketing, but this will be essential if we hope to increase ridership. Chapter 4 deals with equipment and facility needs. Obviously, our current fleet was designed for a transit model that may have been functional in the 60's and 70's, but does not meet the City's current needs. As we modify our fleet to accommodate the now service option, we will need to also consider facility needs, and many other types of transit amenities, like shelters, bus stops, benches and signage. The final Chapter (5) reviews potential funding options. ACTT®N STEP That you share this memorandum with the City Council prior to the worksession on June 23, so they can review the proposed service options and other options presented by LSC Transportation Consultants. Ultimately, following the consultants' presentation and questions, the Council will be asked to identify which service option seems best fitted for our "new age" transportation model. e ey i e sie per ti® a ay~is ec ica e ®ra Yalu ti® ® ervice i® ~~. ;, i ';_ ,_ ~- L,- L ;_ ~~ ,` ~- I - - _ it = _ - - = [ -J -- C ~ ,- -- -- TRANSPORTATION CONSULTPeNTS, INC. uuu yLin rr~pr h n~iv p r tinal r~aly~is chnic I M rnr ndurn v lu tin f rvic pti®ns Prepared for: City of Dubuque 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 (563) 589-4393 Prepared by: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 516 North Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868 LSC #085560 June 12, 2009 T L TENT Chapter Title Page I INTRODUCTION ............................................. I-1 Report Contents .............................................I-1 II TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS .......... . ................... . ... II-1 Introduction ............................................... II-1 Transit Service Options ....................................... II-1 Option 1 -Central Hub ................................. . .. II-2 60-Minute Headway .................................... II-2 30-Minute Peak Headway, 60-Minute Off-Peak ............... II-3 30-Minute Headway ...... . ............................. II-3 Option 2 -East and West Hubs .............................. II-5 60-Minute Headway .................................... II-5 30-Minute Peak Headway, 60-Minute Off-Peak ............... II-5 30-Minute Headway ............ . ....................... II-6 Option 3 -Central Hub Hybrid System . . ...................... II-8 15-Minute Peak Headway, 30-Minute Off-Peak ............... II-8 30-Minute Headway .................................... II-8 30-Minute Peak Headway, 60-Minute Off-Peak ............... II-9 30-Minute Peak Headway, Midday Demand-Response Service .... II-9 Option 4 -Taxi Voucher Program ............................ II-11 Current Demand ..................................... II-11 Increased Demand .................................... II-12 Late Nights and Sunday Service .......................... II-12 Taxi Voucher Examples ................................ II-12 Iowa City, Iowa .................................... II-12 Olathe, Kansas .................................... II-13 Washington County, Maryland ........................ II-13 Rhineland, Wisconsin ............................... II-13 Organizational Options ...................................... II-14 Central Dispatch for All Demand-Response Service .............. II-14 RTA Operation of All Demand-Response Services ............... II-14 ITS Technology Improvements .............................. II-15 Implementation ................. . ....................... II-16 Passenger Information Signs ............................ II-16 Real-Time Internet Information ........................... II-17 Queue-Jump Lanes ................................... II-17 Signal Priority ...................................... . . II-18 III MARKETING PROGRAM ......................................III-1 Current Marketing Program ...................................III-1 Ride Guide ..............................................III-1 Bus Stops .. ............................................III-1 Transit Benefit Program ......................................III-2 Pass Program ..............................................III-2 Other Transit Incentive Programs ............................... III-4 Outreach Program ...........................................III-4 Promote Service to Users .....................................III-5 Re-Branding the System ........................ . .............III-5 -ii- IV EQUIPMENT AND FACILITY NEEDS ............................. IV-1 Introduction .............................................. .IV-1 Vehicles ............................................... .IV-1 Facility Requirements .................................... . IV-3 General Bus Stop Guidelines ............................... . IV-3 Bus Stop Areas, Bus Landing Pads, and Accessible Paths ...... . IV-4 Signs .............................................. .IV-6 Passenger Amenities ................................... . IV-8 Shelters ............................................ .IV-8 Benches ............................................ .IV-9 Trash Receptacles ..................................... .IV-9 Lighting ............................................ IV-10 Bicycle Parking ...................................... IV-10 Park-and-Ride/Multimodal Facilities ...................... IV-10 Industry Standards ...................................... IV-11 V FINANCIAL NEEDS .......................................... V-1 Introduction ............................................... V-1 Funding Gaps .............................................. V-1 Funding Sources ............................................ V-2 Capital Funding .......................................... V-2 Operations and Maintenance Funding ......................... V-3 Local and Regional Funding Sources .......................... V-4 General Fund Appropriations ............................. V-4 Local Transit Levy ...................................... V-4 Advertising ........................................... V-4 Hotel/Motel Tax ....................................... V-5 Local College Funding .................................. V-5 Federal Transit Funding ................................... V-5 FTA Section 5309 -Capital Improvement Grants .............. V-6 FTA Section 5307 -Public Transportation for Urbanized Areas ... V-6 FTA Section 5316 -Job Access and Reverse Commute Program ... V-7 FTA Section5317 -New Freedom ....... . .................. V-7 Transit Benefit Program ................................. V-7 Transportation and Community System Preservation Program .... V-8 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families .................... V-8 Head Start Program .................................... V-8 Other Federal Funds ................................... V-9 Funding Summary .......................................... V-9 -iii- LI ~ F °~ l1L TI Table Title Page II-1 Real-Time Information Board Locations ........................ II-17 II-2 Service Operation Summary .... . ............................ II-19 IV-1 Fixed-Route Vehicle Requirements ............................. IV- I IV-2 Fixed-Route Vehicle Purchases ....................... . ....... IV-2 V-1 Operating Cost Comparison ............ . .................... . V-2 LI T FILL T °TIN lure Title Page II-1 Option 1 ................................................. II-4 II-2 Option 2 ... . ............................................. II-7 II-3 Option 3 ................................................ II-10 IV-1 ADA Minimum Dimensions of a Passenger Loading Pad and Shelter ... IV-5 -1V- I- ~:r ,_ ~~ _`-;_ -`_ -- U L~ ~, i ._ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. The City of Dubuque (KeyLine) contracted with LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to complete an Operational Analysis with a focus on determining the need for future service expansion and to identify efficiencies in providing those services. The overall approach to this project is to collect and evaluate boarding data, review origin-destination information, provide an analysis of demand, and review operational characteristics. This report represents the third in a series of four reports and presents the transit service options, marketing program, equipment and facility needs and the financial needs for the system. ~ ~ ~ This third report presents the route and service options for review. Preliminary route concepts were presentedto the advisory committee, stakeholders group, and city council in March 2008. This report presents service options that stem from the concepts presented in Technical Memorandum #2. Chapter II presents service options with varying frequencies along with their potential costs. Chapter III presents a marketing program. A review of the equipment and facility needs is included in Chapter IV. The final chapter of the technical memorandum examines the financial needs of the system. The recommended service plan will be forthcoming in Technical Memorandum #4. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page I-1 r ~ '~ i i i - - i~~ ~~ The basis for any transit plan is the careful consideration of realistic service options. Passenger needs, travel patterns, and funding often dictate the type of service to be provided in an area. However, it is always helpful to research realistic transit service options and costs for transit services. Capital requirements, financial plans, and management options can then be developed to support the planned transit service. The following discussion evaluates the various transit service options for meeting the transportation needs of the local residents. '~ ~I ~I The following section reviews the various conceptual transit service options. Table II-2, at the end of this chapter, details the various service options reviewed in this analysis. The number ofvehicles operating in maximum service for each alterna- tive as well as operating costs are estimated. Each alternative is presented with a brief description of the transit service option and some other attributes. A cost of X61.53 per hour of service was derived from the fully allocated costs presented in a previous technical memorandum. Demand-response service was estimated at $40 per hour. All of the service options assume operating a 13-hour day compared to the current 11-hour operating time. Having service operating from roughly 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. allows commuters to more effectively use the system. It should be noted that the proposed costs do not take into account that ADA paratransit service would operate an extra hour daily. This may add to the cost of providing the Mini-bus service. The exception would be the option that has midday demand-response service, which could lower this cost. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-1 Transit Service Options pti®n 1 ®Central Hui The first transit service option can be seen in Figure II-1. This option has one central transfer point to be located in the vicinity of the existing Delhi transfer center. The current location of the Delhi transfer center may not be appropriate for future options due to the limited size and area for growth. The majority of routes that go throw the Eagle Point neighborhood have not changed. This is due to the fact that ridership is highest through these neighborhoods, which also have the greatest transit needs. Under this option, the downtown shuttle would be similar to the current trolley service being offered, but would operate year round and provide more frequent service. The downtown shuttle extension is used to accommodate people traveling between the Greyhound Park and Downtown. The route shown in Orange is primarily a shopping circulator, which runs from the transfer point and accesses locations such as Wal-Mart, Kennedy Mall, Kmart and HyVee. The turquoise route is designed to serve individuals living in the southern part of Dubuque. It allows residents to travel to the transfer center or to downtown. The maroon route serves Pennsylvania Avenue as well as the growing industrial park. The teal route is designed to serve the northwestern part of the city, along with Goodwill and the rest of Asbury Road. Three scenarios were explored in terms of frequency. Costs and ridership were determined for Option 1 using both 30- and 60-minute headways, as well as a combination option that operates with a 30-minute headway during peak times, and a 60-minute headway during midday. Under each scenario, the downtown shuttle operates at ten-minute intervals, with the extension operating with a 30- minute headway. 60-Minute Headway • Number of vehicles in maximum service: 12 • Total number of vehicles: 15 • Initial capital cost: $600,000 • Paratransit cost: X787,514 LSC Page II-2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Transit Service Options ® Annual operational cost: $2,927,597 ® Annual hours of service: 47,580 ® Annual passenger-trips: 540,700 ® Passengers per hour: 11.4 • Cost per passenger-trip: $5.41 30-Minute Peak Headway 60-Minute Off-Peak ® Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18 ® Total number of vehicles: 22 ® Initial capital cost: ~ 1,350,000 ® Paratransit cost: X787,514 ® Annual operational cost: $3,601,000 ® Annual hours of service: 58,500 ® Annual passenger-trips: 747,500 ® Passengers per hour: 12.5 ® Cost per passenger-trip: X4.96 30-Minute Headway ® Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18 ® Total number of vehicles: 22 ® Initial capital cost: X1,350,000 ® Paratransit cost: X787,514 ® Annual operational cost: X4,391,000 ® Annual hours of service: 71,370 ® Annual passenger-trips: 990,250 ® Passengers per hour: 13.9 ® Cost per passenger-trip: $4.43 LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-3 ~~ ~~~ i ~ }.. ~ {~ ~~-~ ~~r~taan~ mar,~a~a A~a~s~r se5, ~`'e~~axioQ[ ~d~agrr~nr~w7i u Transit Service Options ®Pti®n 2 ®East and West Hubs The second option is based on two transfer points as shown in Figure II-2. The transfer points would be located downtown and at Kennedy Circle or Kennedy Mall. This option incorporates the Eagle Point routes and the downtown shuttle configuration described in Option 1. Three crosstown routes were developed to connect riders between the two transfer points. This option also contains a shopping shuttle that leaves from the Kennedy Circle transfer point and serves many of the popular shopping destinations. This option also explored using 60- and 30-minute headways as a base and the combination peak and off-peak headways. The downtown shuttle is the only route that differs, with a 10-minute headway and 30 minutes for the extension. 60-Minute Headway • Number of vehicles in maximum service: 12 • Total number of vehicles: 15 • Initial capital cost: $600,000 • Paratransit cost: $787,514 • Annual operational cost: $2,927,000 • Annual hours of service: 47,580 • Annual passenger-trips: 511,000 • Passengers per hour: 10.7 • Cost per passenger-trip: $5.73 30-Minute Peak Headway 60-Minute Off-Peak • Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18 • Total number of vehicles: 22 • Initial capital cost: ~ 1,350,000 • Paratransit cost: X787,514 • Annual operational cost: $3,601,000 • Annual hours of service: 58,500 • Annual passenger-trips: 706,250 • Passengers per hour: 11.8 • Cost per passenger-trip: $5.25 LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-5 Transit Service Options 30-Minute Headway • Number of vehicles in maximum service: 18 • Total number of vehicles: 22 • Initial capital cost: ~ 1,350,000 • Paratransit cost: $787,514 • Annual operational cost: X4,391,000 • Annual hours of service: 71,370 • Annual passenger-trips: 935,000 • Passengers per hour: 13.1 • Cost per passenger-trip: $4.69 LSC Page II-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 's ~ ~ suRr,EV ~o N o ~' i 1?ERRV ~ I ,, ~ -.... ~O ~ ' n . s• A o ~ 9 ( j~ t"• (~, in N \ Vl i !~ n ~. < y p a ~m SBUR\' 2 ! - AS URY COURT N o p I _ 7 ~ ~ 1i `~~~ -~ ~ CARVER ~rr Y ~ p ~ i- W g ~~~E,~EYL °.E''°A"'EL Figure II-2 S`' ~, ,~ ORE37 ~o„„° „`~.'~ Option 2 O y C. o ... ~ \ La 7 Q OW i7H1' ~ JO _ ~ o w rc OP-1C1v ~ J ~ OnaRgRD ~ 2A .~ ~ FUTU O ~ U S ~ ~ ~ I t ~ GE ~, G ~ r c~ ~ y ~ A O ONP~ Z ~p0 ~ hl y Py , RT3 OH ~ (~ v,~ ~' ~ ' Mo o ~o, uH z _ - OOAtE- '~-E`IE ~ O -~ r N BIKE 9 (F SI(il~ ST ITE eRUN_ g~cAn50 ~ r T )RE 1 ~Ny o m , ny RES A OON\G~' ~ _. _ o~ ~ ' ~LA fn ~G Ty i ~' S p Yti•~7F1 Y sl~Q ~ ~~0 4~L G a \ ~ A ... ~ Z A ` , ~ m. ~ z s 11 Y Owl ~•~. p Grandview Hillcrest-Clarke Crosstown Roads _ _ ~ r z I<EI R,y~ ~"" ~ ?. ~ Mt St Francis ------ _ Rhomberg Ave Water Features 9 w v ~ o ^ ' ti lril ~ Shopping Circulator ~ Downtown Shuttle Dubuque Limits v ° ~ KerLr a r G ~-'°^ Central Ave ~ ~ Shuttle Ex:~..:,:~.. v, 9 Due oue u = EN ~ University Crosstown RTA Express Route uuEN __ o I Untill,Lt lNlti~l`C. ~ - _ tN~-~'ER pf,.'JOH MINES OF SPAIN Transit Service Options pti®ri 3 ®Central Hub Hybrid ~yatern The third option is shown in Figure II-3. This option is the most different from the current service being utilized. It involves a central and western transfer center. The key features of this option are the utilization of demand-response zones. These demand-response zones offer flexibility for patrons. In addition to the demand-response zones, there are two circulators that depart from the transfer points. There is a medical circulator that leaves from the Delhi transfer point and that operates as a deviated route. This means that it can deviate a set distance from the route to serve passengers. The Kennedy transfer point operates a shopping shuttle similar to the ones presented in the previous options. This option was exploredwith four different scenarios. The first scenario is to have 15-minute headways during peak times with 30-minute headways during the rest of the day. The second option looks at 30-minute headways all day. The third option involves a 30-minute peak headway with 60-minute headways the rest of the day. The last option considers using 30-minute peak headways with only demand-response service during the middle portion of the day. 15-Minute Peak Headway, 30-Minute Off-Peak ® Number of vehicles in maximum service: 27 ® Total number of vehicles: 33 ® Initial capital cost: X3,150,000 ® Paratransit cost: $787,514 ® Annual operational cost: X5,296,577 ® Annual hours of service: 90,243 ® Annual passenger-trips: 1,152,000 ® Passengers per hour: 12.8 ® Cost per passenger-trip: X4.60 30-Minute Headway ® Number of vehicles in maximum service: 20 ® Total number of vehicles: 25 LSC Page II-8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Transit Service Options Initial capital cost: $1,100,000 ® Paratransit cost: $787,514 ® Annual operational cost: X4,623,330 ® Annual hours of service: 79,300 ® Annual passenger-trips: 1,023,000 ® Passengers per hour: 12.9 ® Cost per passenger-trip: $4.52 30-Minute Peak Headway 60-Minute Offi-Peak ® Number of vehicles in maximum service: 20 ® Total number of vehicles: 25 ® Initial capital cost: X1,100,000 ® Paratransit cost: $787,514 ® Annual operational cost: $3,964,520 ® Annual hours of service: 68,595 ® Annual passenger-trips: 780,000 ® Passengers per hour: 11.4 a Cost per passenger-trip: X5.52 30-Minute Peak Headway Midday Demand-Response 5_ervice ® Number of vehicles in maximum service: 20 ® Total number of vehicles: 33 ® Initial capital cost: $1,400,000 ® Paratransit cost: X748,138 ® Annual operational cost: X3,650,008 ® Annual hours of service: 68,713 ® Annual passenger-trips: 662,000 ® Passengers per hour: 9.6 ® Cost per passenger-trip: X5.52 LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-9 L' ~F^ y~N/,4 / ti m. Of2ESTDEEtR V~FID.YEY OBIN h1000E` F~pt ODl3 's. - rn ~0 d~ -_.._ _.... ~ ~' O C~ - SURREY y'1'O / ~ _ T J ~~_. ~ ^^~ ~ O I/ L / ,[ r C / R t ti J S~%'` i ~, f y t" - -~-~-.mot .. :ILn„' IMF/NfF AIM 'nr f_~i> ~' .' ;1`'1AT.'. O . .. ~L Y.Y ..7:.~~ J.a . nY ~y0 o Demand~~:t ~~ ~ ;!,~ ~,.~---~` OLVMPI! 52 ~\ ` ~_. Fixed-Route ~i Y fV41 ( // n yr V ~~~ c :,^ _ Response , / aFI;: - .Je A ,,a o - r ~~ f{/ .n ~..,~_.... a f ~~ ~M,,-,._ I ~,,.~ ~ ~* ~"~i 1M k~ ~ ¢t~ "`~/ '• ''~13. _ \ ~ r~ ' •" ,,.,_ ~ '~ ti '~ f f ,y ~1~~ ~. enc Fixed-Route z . ,:Ir t ,aim-~ coyz_T,P"''•1 `Y`~ R I~t R ,~~ t„ z Vehicle 7 ~ j rrt ~h RYVa000 L t Yl~i ~ Y .- ! _ ~ \\ i-' i '. ~ 'NEr E ~ ~+; .,~... ~_~V 1 -.:r'"` ~q(FF 0~" ~~~ ~, .~EaG~CP rv'`! a f~~. =''~` _.~,.. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ '~' ~ kn f+n N .~~y--~ :~e~ ~ 1 ~+1...:L >i....;':w;1 D r~ V ~ ~'~/ y I ~AJ .1~~ ... _ 1 6' 4~` . 4~j r . ~. ~ I + AR R R , ~ ~ s Ip y ~ ~ ~~E~"~nl;~i pn ~~~ ~ ci ~LravN 1' y~~t R rt O C) M } I"1 ~~('7~~a~ ^~~ P F'.. !~; ~ ~ I_o,~-I L s; ~, h .~ i u° \a ~~ C ,y `''( /~'.~~"~_~rvq co ~n-~Rr^V~~k- -. yA~ , wn . r u ~ N H JI'-'`~ . ~ 7 ~~~ rr "~..1: x R ~~l ~ 1~ kr'r~lEick~ - ~ t r -' i. S ~ ] ~ JE'1 ^y ,r Ir vl~L9RIr, "'`I^ 1 ~ ~ ,~ L /' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~q S r~ ~ -toL+ ..... .^^!! s n. i I ~s~.~ "~ ~. ,Y. r Y' ~~ ~~I I°. ~~ ~ 1~~• ~ i ":~ i ~if~. i.. i yn x F 1 ~v4 ,~~ `\~~ ~ '2 \~v~k SnS~ rx, f~ ~~~ 1 ~n~~,1~~! :F,~: ~ '. ~ `Lr'.rj I ~-F I 1~ _ `•"_~ ~ /1 t its' ~ `~1/ ``~'~? \e.. ~~ ~ I { ,I .L.~pp •- I r n ~ ~ - ~ ~ae~ • ~~~ I k X144! ~ {~_{~~~' '~ ft9 ~1; .'AN 7 Lf1/" I~~~ 1 ~.~~,. rr ~.. J 2t ,:~ ~ ` Nu~~EF§°IT ~ t ~~ i ~~.11'f~^~ _ _ ~ ^- ; vJ f 1 ,,1~1, ~~i ~ c D W -' ;~ a ~ S u v_. L ~ ,n v' ~°1 a. - 1 r .. ~ r G fit' ... _ O `~.... ~~:, `~ ~ STONEM ~ ,~y ,`Lp 8 -t , I 'Yt__ ~ '.~ 1 ,J ,fi Downtown ~~~ ` " ''NCtvr ~ 4 , 1 X07 Shuttle a - ` ~ Sri •- ~ r„' ~s , w ~-' nP 1.1 ~~ ~ P ~MA4RD ~ ~` ~ E4d~+ V~^~ ~" Vanpool ,i;N ^. - J ~ IY[ dIyUP15K51.L ~pS N ° °`,J k.>r' ~Y ~r~ :a" ~~f ~'~ 1 - Vehicle ~-` ~ ,~ J~^~- \~`° ~ f~`~ Q. ~ . P Iu .1 r q m \„~ 'fi 9'~ ~~ fp~~'1 f * y'v.- -_.. o +'t \v`•'' ~ 1 ( _. y o`' ~ ~~~.fififiTTT~~~''''~I'i Al~'~ .,~~~ ~ _ X. R y' ,.1• ~lYh r " tel. ~ p ~ D~~ ~ ~ + Shuttle Medical Loop -Deviated Route Roads r ~~~ ~ ~yi f 9.p~F( _ ~'~ W u) n ~ !},. ~ ~ Shuttle Extension Rhomberg Ave Circulator Water Features ~ 4 0 i;,~ ' W hill ~ Shvppiny CireulaWl ~ Ml St Francis Cillvlalor Dubuque Limits ~ ~k ~ ` ~ Pennsylvania Ave Connector ' Central Ave Circulator ~,o~le l~' LIN G. ~i1 Asbury Rd Connector RTA Express Route ~ i 11..1nti1'<1R'f~\nON ( )\tiUl IANiti, INC. ... .. ... __ ..._. ... ... .. .,_,,, __ ..-,,,_~. IV1. `. 7n g1lNC ; Or SI'Ath Transit Service Options pti®n 4 ®°Taxi d!®ucher Pr®gram Taxi voucher programs are fairly common in rural areas and smaller communities. They allow users to have subsidized trips with the convenience of a private provider. Riders generally purchase vouchers that are redeemable for a taxi trip with certain conditions. The u ser generally pays for the voucher, the cost of which would be comparable to bus fare. The taxi company then redeems the vouchers with the issuer to receive full payment for the trip. We looked at this option under multiple scenarios. The first was to determine the cost based on current demand. We then examined the cost if demand increased due to convenience and enhanced service. The last option looked at the cost of providing taxi vouchers from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and on Sundays to supplement the regular transit service. Using costs provided by the local taxi company and an average trip length of 4.6 miles, the average cost per passenger was estimated at $10.80. The trip length of 4.6 miles is a fairly typical national average for passenger trip length on transit. Please note that this option would eliminate the need to provide paratransit service. It is assumed that current paratransit riders would be shifted to the taxi voucher program. At least a few available vehicles will have to be wheelchair- accessible in order to accommodate users with limited mobility. In Table II-2 the costs associated with paratransit riders are listed under paratransit costs even though these riders would most likely be using the voucher program. Current Demand Looking at the cost of providing taxi vouchers at the current ridership level of 554 unlinked daily trips, provides a good baseline. Using the aforementioned rate yields an approximate daily cost of$5,972. The yearly cost of providing this service is estimated at $1.86 million. The additional cost of providing this service to those individualswho were previously using Mini-bus service is approximately $545,000 annually. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-I 1 Transit Service Options Increased ®emand The use of taxi vouchers would undoubtedly cause an increase in use due to the convenience and cost. Using a comparable demand to the Central Hub system that operates a 30-minute headway during peak times and a 60-minute headway during off-peak times, the system would cost approximately $5,475,600 annually to operate. In addition, it is estimated to cost another X545,000 to accommodate former paratransit riders with the service, bringing the total cost to over X6,000,000. Late Nights and Sunday Service While using taxi vouchers as the primary service doesn't seem feasible, using it to supplement transit service might be. If taxi vouchers were used to cover gaps in service, such as from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, it is more practical. Using current ridership statistics, this type of service would cost $1.56 million to operate on week nights and ~ 1.03 million to operate on Sunday. The cost to provide this service to former paratransit users is estimated to be around ~ 168,500 per year. This option does pose a potential unintended consequence. Riders might avoid using regular transit service, instead opting to wait until it was time to use their taxi vouchers, as it is more convenient. Taxi Voucher Examples The following section gives brief descriptions of some communities that are currently using taxi voucher programs in various scenarios. When available, statistics on cost and ridership are provided. Three applicable examples were found that could be use d in some form for Dubuque. Iowa City, Iowa The After Hours Cab program was developed in 2008 to supplement current transit service. This program is designed to allow users to access job and educa- tion opportunities during times when transit service is not in operation. The program is available to city residents for a work, education or child daycare trip. These limitations exist in part because the program is funded through JARC. The participants are accepted based upon apre-qualification application process, LSC Page II-12 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Transit Services Options which then gives them the ability to ride. The program provides them with half- priced cab fare. The transit system is billed the remaining cab fare. Olathe, Kansas The City of Olathe, Kansas offers a taxi voucher program for residents who are elderly, disabled, or low income. This program is available Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Participants in this program must first apply and receive verification. Elderly and disabled individuals are able to get green coupons, while low-income individuals are issued purple coupons. The two coupons determine the purpose for which they can be used. The elderly and disabled may use their coupons, which cost $2.50 each way, for any general purpose. Low-income individuals, who also pay $2.50 each way, may only use their coupons for trips related to work or job skills training. Participants are allowed to purchase up to 20 vouchers permonth. The programhas approximately 1,000 participants who are registered in order to be able to use the service in some capacity. Washington County, Maryland County Commuter of Washington County currently operates the Ride Assist program through the Statewide Specialized Transportation Assistance Program (SSTAP). This program is open to disabled individuals and the elderly. Individuals in the program must submit an application to the transit system before being allowed to participate. Program participants may use the vouchers Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The cost for vouchers varies by location within the county and ranges between X3.75 and X5.00 for a booklet worth $10.00. Thus, users pay a maximum of half of the fare. A maximum of fourteen booklets maybe purchased within cone-month period; the vouchers do not expire. Total expenses for this program in FY 2008 were $202,000. There were approximately 200 clients enrolled in the program, meaning that the cost per participant was roughly $1,000. Rhinelander, Wisconsin The City of Rhinelander, Wisconsin operates a general public taxi voucher pro- gram. The program cost passengers $2.50 each way per trip and may be used LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-13 Transit Serui~ Options within Oneida County. The program provided 73,000 trips during 2007, the most recent year that data were available. The total operational cost for the voucher program was $629,000. This equates to a cost per passenger-trip of $8.60. The total mileage traveled for the system is approximately 270,000 miles. The cost per mile was approximately $2.33. AEI ~ ~ ~I Cen~r~l ®ispatch for All ®ennand®Re~ponse service One way to improve service in the region may be to consolidate services. Cur- rently, the RTA and KeyLine have separate dispatching functions and personnel. Consolidating these services into one location would be more efficient. Both systems use comparable scheduling and dispatching software; consolidation would save on licensing and upgrade costs. It is estimated that the consolidation of scheduling and dispatching could improve efficiency of the Mini-bus by as much as one passenger per hour. This efficiency increase would save a total of 7,400 hours of service if the Mini-bus went from 2.5 passengers per hour to 3.5 by placing some passengers on RTA buses and some RTA passengers on the Mini- bus. The cost savings could amount to approximately X208,000 annually. This option would also require a service agreement between the RTA and the City for the dispatching service and for passengers transported on vehicles operated by the other agency. Anon-monetary benefit is the enhanced customer service that could arise from this scenario. Local residents would be able to have the majority oftheir transportation needs covered by one office, mal~ng both systems more convenient to use. R°TA peration of All ®emande~pon~e Service Both KeyLine and RTA provide paratransit services within the region. The Mini- bus service being operated by KeyLine costs approximately $47.90 per hour. The service provided by RTA is significantly less, costing only $42.73 per hour. This cost difference suggests that it may be wise financially for KeyLine to contract their paratransit services to RTA. Using the current expenses for both agencies, the total estimated cost for both agencies to provide paratransit services is approximately $2.84 million. If KeyLine LSC Page 77-14 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Transit Service Options were to contract the services to RTA, this cost would be reduced to roughly $2.1 million with an estimated savings of X328,000 annually. This represents a savings of 14 percent in total paratransit costs. This figure represents the cost of RTA providingparatransitsewices along with havingcentralizedthspatch which would increase the efficiency of the system. I`TS Te~hrt®I®g~ Impr®v~mer~#,~ Many intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements can help improve transit service by providing information or by giving buses a distinctive advantage. This includes providing information in real time as well as signaling improvements. In the late 1900s, the use of automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems to better monitor and control operations was being used. As these AVL systems further developed, transit agencies recognized that data from an AVL system could be used to customers' benefit by providing real-time predictions of bus arrivals. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications for KeyLine Transit should be considered to reduce the amount of information drivers must record and to streamline the information processes. By combining systems on vehicles with computer-aided dispatch, there is the potential for significant improvements in productivity. One component of the system is automatic vehicle location (AVL), which includes a global positioning system (GPS) receiver on the vehicle with digital communication to a central computer. The AVL system provides informa- tion to the dispatcher showing the vehicle's precise location at any time. KeyLine already has an AVL component in place. The second key component is a mobile data terminal (MDT), which displays information for the driver and can serve as a data entry terminal. Rather than using manual tally boards to record passen- gers, passenger hoardings are entered on the MDT and the data is transmitted to the central computer. This reduces the need for the driver to record total hoard- ings at the end of the shift. It is also possible to record deadhead mileage directly using the MDT. KeyLine could install MDTs for recording passenger counts. These systems cost approximately $10,000 to $12,000 per vehicle. ITS is also used to improve service to the customer and to benefit the community at large. The public values information about when the next vehicle is coming, LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page 77-I S Transit Service Options potential delays, possible travel itineraries for future trips, etc. They expect more reliable travel times and connections, etc. These expectations will only build further as communication technologies permeate society. ITS realtime display boards can be installed in parking garages, colleges, major downtown businesses, transfer locations, malls, and major shopping centers in the City of Dubuque. However, to achieve increased ridership, control must be effective enough to permit accurate estimates of vehicle arrival times. Security, through quick response to incidents, can also result in increased ridership. According to the TCRP Synthesis 48: "Real-Time Bus Arrival Information," most transit systems use light-emitting diode (LED) signs to present bus arrival information at stops. Other methods of real-time bus information being used are the Internet, cell phones, and personal digital assistants (PDAs). Information displayed on LEDs are the route number and final destination of the vehicle, waiting time displayed either in a countdown format or as a time range, and, in some cases, service disruptions and/or asecuritymessage is displayed. The view among patrons is that bus services have improved and that people traveling late at night now have the reassurance that the next bus is not far away. Also, real-time bus arrival information results in benefits to the transit agency such as less time required to monitor and control schedule adherence, improved safety and security for personnel and riders, and less time invested in responding to customer inquiries. Implementatl®n Passenger Information Signs Buses operated by the RTA and KeyLine are equipped with automatic vehicle locators (AVL) that allow their locations and other variables to be tracked. This information can be relayed to screens that are placed at the busiest or most prudent locations. Table II-1 provides a list of preliminary locations along with the quantities required. The screens cost approximately $9,900 each. The total cost for the 22 proposed locations would be approximately $217,800. TCRP Synthesis 68: Methods of Rider Communication reveals a varying degree of operation and maintenance costs for electronic signs at stops. Dubuque can most likely expect LSC Page II-16 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Transit Service Options to pay between five and ten percent of the capital cost annually for operation and maintenance. This is estimated to be between X11,000 and $22,000 per year. Table II-1 Real-Time Information Board Locations Board Location Plumber Parkin Ramps 3 Medical Associates (East and West) 2 McKesson 1 IBM 1 Prudential 1 Mercy Hospital 1 Finley Hospital 1 Dubuque Internal Medicine ~ 1 Target 1 Kennedy Mall 1 Kmart 1 W al-Mart 1 Hy-Vee (Locust) 1 Downtown Transfer Center 1 Kennedy Circle 1 Delhi Transfer Center 1 NICC 1 Dubuque College 1 Loras College 1 Total ~ 22 F2eal-Time Internet Information This same technology can also be used to provide information to passengers over the Internet. This information can be used in a variety of ways, giving passenge rs access to important bus information. The buses canbe tracked so that users know exactly where they are or they can provide similar information to the passenger signs, just in a different medium. Recently a similar system in Des Moines was estimated to cost approximately X101,000. The downside to this system is that it excludes users without Internet access. Queue-Jump Lanes A queue-jump lane gives buses priority at a signalized intersection. Buses have a designated lane in which only they are allowed to queue. This allows the bus not to have to wait in line behind other vehicles. This is a common occurrence in bus rapid transit systems. The creation of aqueue-jump lane is made easier ifright-of- way is able to be purchased or if there are multiple single-direction lanes that can LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page II-17 Transit Services Options be modified. The cost to retrofit a signalized intersection can be between $5,000 and $50,000 or more depending on the magnitude of required improvements. Signal Priorit~r Signal priority gives buses a priority signal over other forms of travel. This allows the bus to depart a few seconds ahead of traffic. Signal priority is often used in conjunction with queue-jump lanes. The cost associated with signal priority are the signal heads. Certain configurations of signals may exist that allow them to be reprogrammed to coincide with a transponder on the bus. Converting a signal to give buses priority can cost between X2,000 and $8,000 depending on the current signal system. LSC Page II-18 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Table II-2 Service Operation Summary Vehicles Estimated Operated in Annual FR Operating Paratransit Total System Revenue- Service Type i3ase Frequency IVlax. Svc. Ridership Cost Costs Operating Costs Hours Cost/'trip Pass/Hour Current Service 60 10 270,762 $1,545,816 $729,180 $2,274,996 25,122 $5.71 10.8 Central Hub 60 12 540,696 $2,927,597 $787,514 $3,715,111 47,580 $5.41 11.4 30 Peal, 60 Off 18 747,508 $3,600,945 $787,514 $4,388,459 58,523 $4.96 12.5 30 18 990,288 $4,391,396 $787,514 $5,178,910 71,370 $4.43 13.9 East and West Hub 60 12 511,056 $2,927,597 $787,514 $3,715,111 47,580 $5.73 10.7 30 Peal, 60 Off 18 706,243 $3,600,945 $787,514 $4,388,459 58,523 $5.25 11.8 30 18 935,376 $4,391,396 $787,514 $5,178,910 71,370 $4.69 13.1 Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peal, 30 Off 27 1,151,904 $5,296,577 $787,514 $6,084,091 90,243 $4.60 12.8 30 ZO 1,022,736 $4,623,330 $787,514 $5,410,844 79,300 $4.52 12.9 _ 30 Pealc, 60 Off 20 779,688 $3,964,520 $787,514 $4,752,034 68,595 $5.08 11.4 Midday DR 20 661,752 $3,650,008 $748,138 $4,398,146 68,713 $5.52 9.6 Taxi Voucher Program Current Demand n/a 172,848 $1,866,758 $544,936 $2,411,694 n/a $10.80 n/a Increased Demand n/a 507,000 $5,475,600 $544,936 $6,020,536 n/a $10.80 n/a Nights and Sunday n/a 240,832 $2,600,986 $168,480 $2,769,466 n/a $10.80 n/a `~ >J m tp CJ ~,- ,- ~~--~:_. l ~; ~~:~ -, -._ _~, ,'__ `_ ~_ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. c~ iii __ __- This chapter outlines several effective marketing and transit incentive programs that could be used by KeyLine Transit. These programs represent practices that are used and have been successful across the United States. ~ ~ ~I~ Ride guide KeyLine Transit has a single ride guide that shows a detailed system map with the route structure, bus stops along each of the routes, schedules for the routes, information on how to ride, bus transfers, operating hours, bus fare information, discount tickets, information on service animals, lost and found information, special services such as the Mini-bus for elderly and disabled customers, contact information, and other bus safety policies. This ride guide enables passengers to use one piece of information for the entire system. The system map includes major landmarks such as schools-elementary, middle, and high schools-shopping plazas, and apartments. The systemwide map and route schedules are available at the City of Dubuque's website, http: / /www.cityofdubugue.or~[, under the Transit Department, City Services. bus St®ps Current KeyLine stops are designated with a variety of signs. Some signs are similar to "no parking" signs and lack a distinctive appearance. These bus stops signs should have an individual identity that associates the bus stop with KeyLine Transit. Bus stop signs should be consistent and should include a KeyLine Transit logo, routes that serve that bus stop, and a phone number for schedule information. General guidelines for bus stops and signs are detailed in Chapter IV of this report KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page III-1 .Marketing Program ~ ~ ~~I~ The "Transit Benefit Program" is a provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that permits an employer to pay for an employee's cost to travel to work in other than asingle-occupancy vehicle. The program is designed to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and conserve energy by encouraging employees to com- mute by means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles. Under Section 132 of the IRC, employers can provide up to ~23C1 per month to those employees who commute to work by transit or vanpool. The employer can deduct these costs as business expenses and employees do not report the subsidy as income for tax purposes. The subsidy is a qualified transportation fringe benefit. Under the Safe Accountable Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), the transit pass will be provided as before or can be provided in lieu of salazy. Similar to the previous bill, the transit pass may be provided as a cash-out option for employer-paid parking for employees. To summarize, this program may not necessarily reduce an employer's payroll costs. Rather, it enables employers to provide additional benefits for employees without increasing the payroll. There are programs such as the eco-pass program that are derived from the Transit Benefit Program. This is one of the innovative transit programs that could be used to encourage people to use transit and to meet the city of Dubuque's transportation and ~ _ '\ environmental goals. The workplace transit program was first used in Denver, Colorado, followed by many places such as Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Salt Lake City, Utah. The program was given the name "Eco Pass" to highlight the environmental benefits of using transit over the automobile, but the name varies by the transit agency that implements it. For example, King County Metro LSC Page III-2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum lk3 Marketing Program Transit in Seattle calls their program "F1exPass" and the Lloyd District TMA program in Portland is the "Passport Program." The pass program is based on pricing policies similar to group insurance, where the employer purchases transit passes for all of its employees `vhether they use transit or not. The purchase of passes could be restricted to only full-time employees or to both full-time and part-time employees. The employer contributes the cost of transportation by utilizing employee transit benefits, which are tax deductible and are apre-tax benefit for employees. Transit agencies offer dis- counted rates on these passes based on the assumption that not all employees will use transit, The idea is that the ridership would significantly increase by being available to both riders and those who previously did not use transit and may now use transit for more trips. The pass also raises awareness of the local transit agency among major employers and employees in the area. All pass employees receive a photo ID with which they are given unlimited access within the transit agency's designated service area. An employer usually purchases the passes on an annual basis, the cost of which is dependent on the number of employees, the location of the firm, and the level of transit service received by that business. The cost of the pass varies depending upon the place. Some transit agencies have established a minimum contract size per year for all passes to cover administrative costs, cost of the employees' pictures, and processing costs connect with all passes. Employers may decide whether they want to pass the cost of the pass on to employees or solely bear the cost of transportation. This program is important in encouraging people to use transit because of its low cost and ease in using the system. The program helps reduce the demand for parking and reduces congestion. Use of the pass is not restricted to work trips and can be used for all types of trips. This program works well where a large number of employers are concentrated in an area, where transit agencies can efficiently provide transportation to employees for a lower cost per passenger. Lsc KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page III-3 Marlceting Program Having apre-paid pass encourages riders to use it where they typically wouldn't. For example, if an employer buys the pass for an employee to commute to work, the employee is more likely to use public transportation for getting around because the cost to them is zero. Additionally, employers are allowed to provide a tax-free transit fringe benefit to employees. This program will greatly help new employers like IBM, which plans to bring 1,300 high-tech jobs to Dubuque, Iowa, encourage employees to use transit to get to work. This will also help KeyLine Transit attract more riders to the system. Other transit incentives target existing riders to regularly use transit to get to work by offering discount or monthly passes. The idea is to use transit for all trips including work trips. There are other transit programs that target new riders by providing incentives such as a free bus pass for a month or a complimentary pass for new users. The concept is to target many first-time riders who will use transit, familiarize themselves with the system, and then hopefully make more transit trips. ~~ ~ ~ ~ In addition to the various transit incentive programs, KeyLine Transit should increase public awareness with both employees and employers and attract ridership by creating an image of transit that meets the needs of the community in the area, as well as increasing overall visibility of the transit system. KeyLine could focus on rebranding its system to be more ecologically friendly by making people aware that their fleet consists of ecological vehicles. This can be accomplished by designing a transit logo tailored to identify the KeyLine Transit System. This could also be done by holding a design logo contest for children or students with a theme or an image that the transit system would like to portray. In addition, buses could use an attractive paint scheme or be draped with a simple bus wrap. For affixed-route system, simple bus stop signs that are attractive and easy to identify should be created. Attractive bus passes and a ride guide with key elements of service provided in an easy-to-read document should also be designed. LSC Page III-4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Marketing Program ~ I ~ Promotion of KeyLine Transit should be tailored by ^~: ~~, establishing an educational program that includes a simple ~~ ,` ~ Y-, ' j _. one-page information sheet. This will help to educate .~~ I'~ i ~ ~;~~, r~1 employers and employees on the use of the system. Also, ` ~ ~ ~ local businesses such as shopping malls, education centers, hospitals, and restaurants should be provided with informational brochures that they can post at their places of business. Local businesses should be encouraged to advertise on the buses, thereby generating revenue and creating business partnerships. To further increase public awareness, a booth that provides service information or showcases the buses should be setup at local events such as festivals or fairs. Local schools, colleges, and social service agencies should be contacted to publicize, educate, and inform local agencies about the transit system and to refer clients and employers to KeyLine Transit for their transportation needs. An outreach program should be put into practice for these groups and agencies where they are regularly kept abreast ofthe transit system and any changes. In addition, user incentives such as discount passes, free days, or the donation of canned food to charities should be made available. Advertising should be placed in the local paper highlighting employees' or patrons' stories, promoting a special shopping tour for seniors/elderly/disabled to numerous businesses and retailers, and allowing local retailers/businesses to sell transit passes. Flyers should be placed at common meeting places as advertising and information dissemination. One suggestion that has been made multiple times is to totally re-brand the system. This is an effective strategywhen making service changes because it often gives potential riders the sense that there has been a significant overhaul and detaches their association of the new transit system with the old system. The re- branding of a system should be done in a multitude of ways. It is possible to LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page III-5 Marketing Program change the name, logo, and color scheme associated with the system during the re-branding process. KeyLine Transit has a grey color scheme with the transit logo that identifies the bus with the transit system. The bus also displays above the windshield the name of the route on which it is traveling. KeyLine Transit should invest in creative bus wraps that are economical while being extremely effective at reaching their target market. The high visibility and constant repetition of this medium means greater advertising impact for the dollars spent on these bus wraps. With these changes comes the need to change certain amenities. Among these changes are updating the website, schedules (design), bus wraps, and bus stop signs/shelters. Anything emblazoned with the current system designs would need to be updated as soon as possible. New bus stop signs are relatively cheap, averaging around $100 to $200 depending on their design. The current system has approximately 300 stop locations. To replace all of the signage will cost between $30,000 and $60,000. The existing bus fleet will need to have new bus wraps designed if re-branding is needed. These bus wraps costs around $8,000 per bus. The current fleet of 14 medium buses would cost approximately $112,000 to be re-wrapped with a new design. If the Mini-bus fleet also needs to be wrapped, it will cost an additional X88,000. There is no added cost associated with newly purchased buses as they would need to have a bus wrap regardless of the branding. Likewise, as schedules are reprinted semi-annually, there may not be a significant additional cost for printing. LSC Page III-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 T IV III - _ __ IT ®II~'I This chapter describes the vehicle and facility requirements for the options previously presented. Because of the proposed increases in service, purchase of new vehicles may be required to add to the fleet. !l~hicles KeyLine is already requesting funding to replace some of their fleet. This includes replacing four heavy-duty buses with four medium-duty hybrids and replacing 10 paratransit vehicles with eight vans and two standard taxis. Many of the options presented in Chapter II require more vehicles than KeyLine currently owns. Table IV-1 shows the required number of vehicles for operations and the spares needed by type of vehicle. Table IV-1 Fixed-Route Vehicle Re uirements Operating Spares Base Service T pe Frequent Small Bus Trolle Van Small Bus Trolle Van Central Hub 60 9 3 0 2 1 0 30 15 3 0 3 1 0 East and West Hub 60 9 3 0 2 1 0 30 15 3 0 3 1 0 Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peak, 30 Off 20 4 3 4 1 1 30 14 3 3 3 1 1 30 Peak, 60 Off 14 3 3 3 1 1 Midday DR 14 3 10 3 1 2 Table IV-2 shows the number of vehicles that would need to be purchased, at a minimum, to operate the specified type of service with adequate spares. It is assumed that the vehicles required to run the RTA Express will be provided by the RTA, so they are not included. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page N-1 ~ ~ m n N fable IV-2 Fixed-Route Vehicle Purchases Needed Cost Service Type Rase Frequency ~ Srrrall Rus Trolley Vary Small f3us Trolley ~ Van Total Central Hub 60 0 2 0 $0 $600,000 $0 $600,000 30 ~ 3 2 0 $750,000 I $600,000 $0 $1,350,000 ~ East and West Hub 60 ~ 0 2 0 $0 ~ $600,000 $0 $600,000 30 ~ 3 2 0 $750,0001 $600,000 $0 $1,350,000 Central Hub Hybrid 15 Peal, 30 Off E 9 3 0 I $2,250,000 ~ $900,000 $0 $3,150,000 30 i 2 2 0 $500,000 I $600,000 $0 $1,100,000 30 Pealc, 60 Off ~ 2 2 0 $500,000 $600,000 $0 $1,100,000 Midday DR ~ 2 2 4* $500,000 I $600,000 $300,000 $1,400,000 *Vehicles may be available from the RTA for midday service Equipment and Facility Needs As shown in Table IV-2, all the options require the purchase of trolleys because they will now be runningall year to operate the downtown shuttle. The most costly option for KeyLine in terms of capital costs is the Central Hub Hybrid system that operates with a 15-minute peak headway. It will cost approximately $3.15 million to purchase the additional vehicles required to operate the system under that option. Facility Requirements The addition of multiple ne~v buses may require some changes to the existing storage facility located on Central Avenue. The facility may have to be reorganized to accommodate the new fleet of buses .The capacity that exists at the garage may be enough to house the additional buses, under some of the options. Additional spaces might be necessary to accommodate additional buses undermost options. The reorganization of the system may also require the transfer facilities to be improved. The current transfer facilities may need to be moved or upgraded in order to enhance the transit system. The downtown transfer station needs passenger amenities and, preferably, bus pull-outs for safety. Development of an intermodal center at the Port of Dubuque may provide the opportunity to provide an improved facility. The Delhi transfer center may need to be moved to handle the volume of buses under some of the proposed systems. Another issues is bus stop signing. They are ;~, ~ l _ currently very similar to "No Parkin' signs in terms ',. _ , ' ~, j ~ p i ~- ~"'~, of color and font. These should be changed to be I _ _' more recognizable. Later in this chapter, guidelines are presented that outline proper shelter placement, . ~ 1 'i lighting, bus stops and amenities. Also detailed are ! - F the minimum requirements that have been ~ developed by the ADA. General bus ~t®p Guidelines In order for a bus stop to be usable the design must incorporate various elements that relate to safety and accessibility. The recommended design provides an LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page N-3 Equipment and Facility Needs unimpededpathway from the building or sidewalk being served bythe transit stop and the transit vehicle. This entails positioning street furniture, landscaping, and other obstacles so that they do not protrude into the path of travel. Grade-level changes in sidewalks and platforms should also be avoided> Flat, stable surfaces and seating adjacent to pathways are also important. The path of travel from the designated waiting area to the vehicle must have a simple and consistent layout. The design should include unbroken travel paths from the sidewalk to the bus boarding platform as well as adequate illumination. Pedestrians walking to and from bus stops are often required to travel on the shoulder of the road in areas without sidewalks. Transit riders also must board and deboard buses without the benefit of a curb to lift them closer to the first step of the bus and transit passengers have to get on and off buses on a gravel or dirt surface. This boarding and unloading situation can be difficult for certain individuals, such as the elderly or those who use wheelchairs, and should be addressed in those areas where the replacement of ditches or paved shoulders will be a long-term project. Bus Stop Areas, Bus Landing Pads, and Accessible Paths The recommended design encompasses the baseline requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and allows patrons to have direct access to the transit vehicle. Sidewalks are common in Dubuque and it should be feasible to have a concrete landing pad at each stop. As shown in Figure IV-1, the recom- mended bus stop provides an accessible and comfortable waiting area for all transit users. Wheelchair users, in particular, require a stable, level, and unobstructed landing pad for the wheelchair lift or ramp to be deployed when boarding and alighting. With respect to the waiting area, wheelchair users also require adequate spacing at the stop as well as adequate space to maneuver from the waiting area to the landing pad. Anecdotal experience throughout the country shows that a curb of some sort is usually necessary in order for a wheelchair user to be able to easily get on or off a bus with a ramp, even if the ramp is seemingly "ADA compliant." As virtually all transit passengers are also pedestrians on one or both ends of their trip, well-planned access that provides direct, safe, and attractive access to bus stops can significantly encourage transit use. LSC Page N-4 ~ KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 _ _ ®.. _ Figure Ski-1 ~~ ~° z, a :? ~~ A io 0 ~. w ,4DA Minimum Dimensions of a Passenger Loading Pad and Shelter ~o~ ~ T.Yp. \\ 6'-8" Min. Minimum Clear Floor Area (2'-6" Wide by 4' Dept) Entirely within Perimeter ~~~ of Shelter to Permit Wheelchair ~\ ~~\ ~ or Mobility Aid llser Access \ 2',8„ ~ , Min. 3' S~d~wp/k \ \ 5'x8' Wheelchair Pad SOURCE: TCRP REPORT 19, GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN OF BUS STOPS p cn _ C~ v_ ='_ ~ ®- ,- °~-- ~_: T KANSPORTP:1 ION CONSULTANTS, INC. ^. ..... A I I U DUB ~T®P REQUIRE E TS Equipment and Facility Needs Accessible path design should include the following: ® Access to and from bus stops should be as direct as possible. ® The site design process for new developments should strive to reduce the length and inconvenience of pedestrian accesses between destina- tions and transit stops. ® A sidewalk should be provided from the nearest intersection to the bus stop to provide a minimum level of access, if possible. Minimum ADA design implications for bus stop areas, bus landing pads, and accessible pedestrian accesses include the following: ® A minimum clear passage width of 48 inches is recommended by the Access Board's guidelines for the public right-of--way. This is especially important next to a curb drop-off. ® An accessible route from public transportation stops to the route that is accessible for people with disabilities as well as for the general public. • The running slope of the accessible pathway shall not be steeper than 1:20 while the cross slope shall not be steeper than 1:48 (two percent). Signs ® Parallel to the roadway, the slope of the boarding and alighting area shall be the same as the roadway (to the maximum extent practicable). The maximum slope perpendicular to the roadway shall not exceed 1:48 (two percent). ® The bus landing pad, when installed alone on a shoulder in a rural area, must be elevated six inches above road grade for safety and accessibility purposes. ® Stable, firm, and slip-resistant ground and floor surfaces. ® Grating spaces or drainage grates, which are necessary for water drainage, should be no greater than 9.5 inches long in one direction. Spaces longer than this would impede the use of a wheelchair. It is recommended that signs be posted at all bus stops. Signed stops are a key element in informing passengers where service is available. In addition, bus stop signs provide a permanent "presence" on the street that substantially increases public awareness of the transit program among riders and non-riders alike. The most common type of sign is a flag sign displaying route and passenger infor- mation. The design of bus stop signs should be standardized throughout the system so they are instantly recognizable. It is useful for signs to be double-sided (so they can be read from both directions) and reflectorized (for easy night Page N-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Equipment and Facility Needs reading). It is recommended that bright colors be used for easy bus stop identification. Characters and sign backgrounds should have anon-glare finish; however, characters and symbols should contrasting with the background. Design elements on the sign should include the logo, a phone number for transit information, and, optionally, the major destination of the routes available at the stop. The bus stop sign should, wherever possible, be placed even with where the operator is trained to stop the front door of the bus, thus letting patrons know where to stand. Signs closer to the curb should be positioned to face toward the sidewalk to prevent bus mirrors from hitting the signs. Placement within an existing sidewalk four feet wide or less should be avoided wherever possible. Signs can be located on existing poles such as streetlights or other traffic information signs. Unprotected signposts should be of the breakaway type in order to minimize injuries and damage resulting from motor vehicle accidents. Metal poles at bus stops should be easily recognizable, especially for persons with visual disabilities. There are a few methods that can be used in order to distin- guish a bus stop pole from other street poles commonly used by a public works department: ® Erect metal poles with adistinctive pattern and shape, such as asquare or hollow-holed pole. ® Enhance existing poles with a band of distinctive adhesive at a minimum height of four feet. This marking should be brightly colored (ideally, the band would be a color identified with the transit system), waterproof, and should possess a distinctive texture. Minimum ADA design guidelines apply to the installation of new or replacement signs and include the following. ® The bottom of the sign should be at least seven feet from the ground and the sign should not be closer to the curb than three feet. In areas where there are sidewalks, allow at least 36 inches of clear path on the sidewalk. ® Letters and numbers should have awidth-to-height ratio between 3:5 and l:l and astroke-width-to-height ratio between 1:5 and 1:10. ® Characters and numbers should be sized according to the viewing distance from which they are to be read. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page IV-7 Equipment and Facility Needs ® Minimum height is measured using an upper case X. Lower case char- acters are permitted. ® Accompany pictograms with an equivalent verbal description placed directly below, with a border dimension of six inches (152 millimeters) minimum in height. ® Follow requirements regarding protruding objects (described in the Accessible Path section). Passenger Amenities Passenger amenities are significant elements in attracting public transportation users. Shelters provide protection from the elements and benches add comfort; trash receptacles, lighting, bicycle parking facilities, and other amenities add con- venience and safety.. Shelters A bus shelter provides protection from the elements as well as seating. Typically, a shelter is constructed of clear side panels for visibility and safety. Standardized shelters are available that accommodate various site demands and passenger volumes. Existingshelters are typically 10 feetby 5 feet and installed at stops with 10 or more passenger boardings per day (based on prevailing standards). In a few locations, such as transfer points, larger shelters, or multiple shelters are used. Minimum ADA design guidelines apply to the installation of new or replacement bus shelters and include the following: ® A minimum clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches, entirely within the perimeter of the shelter. ® Maintain shelter openings to be a minimum of 36 inches to allow a wheelchair to pass through. ® Bus stop shelters should be connected by an accessible route to the bus stop landing pad. ® Bus stop shelters should not be placed on -the wheelchair landing pad. ® General ADA mobility clearance guidelines should be followed around the shelter and between the shelter and other street furniture. In addition to the number of boardings per day, othe r factors that Dubuque may wish to consider when evaluating the installation of a shelter include: ® Climate (wind, rain, heat, etc.), which may lead to recommendations regarding whether or not to have side panels or the need for air circu- lation, heating, or cooling systems LSC Page N-8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Equipment and Facility Needs ® Vandalism (broken or scribed glazings) ® The number of transfers at a stop ® The availability of space to construct a shelter and waiting area ® The number of elderly individuals or people with disabilities in the area ® The proximity to major activity centers ® The frequency of service ® Adjacent land uses benches Minimum ADA design considerations apply to the installation of new or replace- ment benches and include the following: ® Clear floor or ground space for wheelchairs ® 20 inches minimum to 24 inches maximum in "overall" depth for benches with backrests ® Seat height of 17 inches minimum to 19 inches maximum above the floor or ground ® Structure supporting vertical or horizontal forces of 250 pounds applied at any point on the seat, fastener, mounting device, or supporting structure ® Exposed benches should be slip-resistant and designed to shed water Trash Rece tp acles Litter at a bus stop is a negative image for the transit agency as well as the community. The installation of trash receptacles at bus stops can alleviate this problem. Not all bus stops require trash receptacles. The decision to include a receptacle at a stop is typically based on boarding counts. If litter is a problem at a particular stop (due, perhaps, to the presence of a fast-food outlet or a convenience store near the stop), a trash receptacle should be installed regardless of boarding counts. Trash receptacles should only be placed at those stops that the transit agency can reliably schedule for trash pickup. In some instances, communities require maintenance of transit receptacles as a condition of nearby development. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between businesses and transit and the need to work together with the community, particularly with fast-food restaurants, to service trash receptacles. KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page N-9 Equipment and Facility Needs ~Ightine~ Lighting at a bus stop affects the safety of patrons and the use of the stop by patrons and non-patrons in the hours after sunset. Awell-lit bus stop enhances the waiting passengers' comfort and security, while a dimly lit or unlit stop encourages non-patrons to loiter at the stop. It is recommended that from two- to five-foot candles of illumination be provided at all bus stops that will be in use after daylight hours. Lighting fixtures should be vandal-proof and easily main- tained. The use of exposed bulbs and other elements that can be easily tampered with or destroyed should be avoided. Whenever possible, bus stops should be located near existing streetlights as this is acost-effective method of providing adequate lighting. Another option is the use of solar power to illuminate bus shelters. Typically, the power system mounts to a pole that makes it compatible with any shelter and maximizes the solar energy harvest. bicycle Parking It is appropriate to provide bicycle parking at some bus stops. The provision of bike parking facilities discourages bicycle riders from locking their bikes to the bus stop or adjacent structures and reduces visual clutter by locating bikes together in one area. Bicycle parking facilities should be located away from other activities to reduce congestion and improve safety. At lighted stops, bike parking should be located near the lighting to offer protection from theft. Bike parking should not restrict views into the bus stop area. It is recommended that racks for bike parking be provided at bus stops where there is potential for a high level of bike access by patrons, such as near educational facilities. Park-and-Ride/Multimodal Facilities Multimodal, or intermodal, centers are facilities designed to encourage transfer between travel modes. Multimodal centers, for the purposes of this study, are those that facilitate the transfer to buses of users of other modes of transporta- tion.Typically, park-and-ride lots and transit transfer facilities meet this criterion. Amenities that should be provided at these facilities include one or more shelters and benches, adequate lighting, an auto drop-off area, bicycle parking, motorcycle parking, toilet, kiosks, and appropriate landscaping. LSC Page N-10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Equipment and Facility Needs Indusfiry ~f~ndards Standards for bus stops include, but are not limited to, the following: ® Stops should meet minimum ADA standards. • Bus parking pads should be a minimum of eight feet in width, preferably 10 feet. Stop pads should be constructed of concrete, especially if they are served by four or more buses per hour. • If asphalt is to be used, a minimum of three inches of asphalt over a minimum of five inches of base materials is recommended. Concrete bus pads should be a minimum of eight inches of reinforced concrete. • Curb heights should be no less than four inches and no more than eight inches to minimize passenger falls when alighting from a bus. • A minimum horizontal clearance of two feet should be providedbetween the curb and any obstruction (bench/sign). LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page N 11 r ~ ~ I~~ ~~~I Chapter V provides an evaluation of the funding gaps and existing options for transit services within the study area. One of the principal challenges facing any transit service is developing a funding system that supports capital investment (buses, maintenance facility, etc.) and provides a stable source of revenue for operations and maintenance. Organizational and legal issues for multi-jurisdic- tional transit agencies further compound this challenge. An important objective of this study is to present recommendations for an institutional framework and a financing plan for public transit that are acceptable to the parties involved and that can be realistically implemented. With this goal in mind, the following discus- sion presents an analysis of the most appropriate financial alternatives and a basis for making a decision. tJNIN One of the main barriers to providing an increased amount of service is being able to fund it. The current operating budget for the KeyLine fixed-route system is approximately $1,546,000. About seven percent of the budget is paid by fares. The remaining money comes from various funding sources, including state and federal grants, advertising, and property tax revenues. The advertizing revenue makes up a very small portion of the total budget (less than one percent), with the majority (53 percent) coming from property taxes. The proposed systems all have greater operating costs and some of them include expanding the fleet, thus increasing the capital cost as well. Table V-1 shows the operating costs over the next five years (using a 3.5 percent inflation rate) for the proposed systems, and the existing budget for comparison. Depending on the option that Dubuque decides to implement, the gap in funding for the first year is anywhere from $1.38 million to $3.75 million in terms of operating costs. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page V-1 Financial Needs Table V~1 O eratin Cost Com arison Option Headway First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth Year Central Hub 60 $3,715,111 $3,845,14 $3,979,72 $4,119,010 $4,263,175 30 Peak, 60 Off $4,388,45 $4,542,05 $4,701,02 $4,865,56 $5,035,858 30 $5,178,91 $5,360,17 $5,547,77 $5,741,95 $5,942,918 East and West Hub 60 $3,715,111 $3,845,14 $3,979,72 $4,119,010 $4,263,175 30 Peak, 60 Off $4,388,45 $4,542,05 $4,701,02 $4,865,56 $5,035,858 30 $5,178,91 $5,360,17 $5,547,77 $5,741,95 $5,942,918 Central Hub H brid 15 Peak, 30 Off $6,084,091 $6,297,03 $6,517,43 $6,745,54 $6,981,634 30 $5,410,84 $5,600,22 $5,796,231 $5,999,09 $6,209,068 30 Peak, 60 Off $4,752,03 $4,918,35 $5,090,49 $5,268,66 $5,453,068 Midday DR $4,398,14 $4,552,081 $4,711,404 $4,876,30 $5,046,974 Taxi Increased Demand $6,020,53 $6,231,25 $6,449,34 $6,675,07 $6,908,704 CurrenfFundin $2,274,99 $2,354,62 $2,437,03 $2,522,32 $2,690,690 ~~~®f~ ~~ Successful transit systems are strategic about funding and attempt to develop funding bases that enable them to operate reliably and efficiently within a set of clear goals and objectives according to both short-range and long-range plans. Potential strategies for funding the transit services within the study area are described below. Capii~l Funding The existing and future transit services will require capital funding for vehicle procurement and transit facilities. The following strategies for funding the capital development should be considered. Federal funding (along with any state matching funds) should be applied for, both within the existing Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Sections 5307, 5309, 5316, and 5317 programs and through the pursuit of discretionary grants from FTA channels and direct congressional earmarked funding. Small transit systems often underachieve their potential for federal grant assistance because they assume that they cannot compete in this arena. In general, the best us e of federal discretionary grant funding is for capital needs since this is a highly speculative source of money that requires extensive political effort at a level that is feasible only as a one-time or occasional undertaking. Lsc Page V-2 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Financial Needs Planning for capital facilities (such as vehicles and transit facilities) examines the long-range transit system's development needs. Many transit systems outgrow their facilities quickly and face costly relocation and expansion needs because of inadequate space or other constraints. The financial management system of any future organization overseeing the regional transit service should include specific provisions for fleet replacement and other capital investments. Note that buses and certain other capital facilities purchased with federal participation (80 percent under SAFETEA-LU) are also eligible for federal participationforreplacement costs once the buses and facilities reach maturity (as defined in the FTA rules). ®perati®ns and Maintenance Funding The primary financial requirement of a local transit system is funding routine operations and maintenance including the daily transit service, vehicle maintenance, and system administration. Labor represents about 50 percent of the operating costs. Maintenance for KeyLinevehicles currently represents almost a third of the entire fixed-route budget. The following strategies for funding operations and maintenance should be considered. Reliance on general fund appropriations from local governments should be avoided if possible. It is common for local and regional transit agencies in many states to be dependent upon annual appropriations from their constituent towns, cities, and counties. As a practical matter, such appropriations mean that it will not be possible to forecast future funding levels given the exigencies of local government funding. A transit agency that relies upon such appropriations will be unable to undertake capital planning and will continually face potential service cutbacks. This, in turn, makes it difficult or impossible for the transit agency to enter into partnership arrangements with other agencies or private entities. Transit agencies, like highway agencies, require that most or all of their operations and mainte- nance funding comes from dedicated sources so that they can undertake respon- sible planning and offer reliable, consistent service. Operations and maintenance funding mechanisms should be designed to anti- cipate transit system growth. Successful small urban transit systems around the country are experiencing annual growth in ridership. It is important to be able to LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page V-3 Financial Needs respond to such growth by increasing service levels to meet the transit demand. This means that the ideal funding sources for operations and maintenance are those that have the flexibility to be increased or expanded as the transit demand grows. Such flexibility will, in most cases, require voter approval. The important consideration is that the need for growth has been anticipated and that the potential for larger budgets is not precluded by the choice of a specific funding source. Local and Regional Funding sources General Fund Appro riap tions Counties and municipalities may appropriate funds for transit operations, main- tenance, and capital needs. Funds to be appropriated generally come from local property taxes and sales taxes. Competition for such funding is high and local governments generally do not have the capacity to undertake major new annual funding responsibilities for transit. Local Transit Le The state of Iowa allows municipalities to levy a maximum of $0.95 on every $1,000 of assessed property value annually for transit usage. For FY 2009, the levy rate for Dubuque is approximately $0.67 for every $1,000 of taxable valuation. This yields X1,253,638 for the year. The amount that Dubuque has levied for transit has increased each year since 2002, when the rate was X0.27. At the current levy rate, this may be increased to X1,291,000 for FY 2010. If the maximum allowable amount of X0.95 was levied, this figure would rise to approximately X1,839,000 for FY 2010. Advertising One modest but important source of funding for many transit agencies is on- vehicle advertising. The largest portion of this potential is for exterior advertising rather than interior "bus card" advertising, since the potential funds generated by interior advertising are comparatively low. Advertising on bus shelters has also been used to pay for the cost of providing the shelters. LSC Page V-4 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Financial Needs Hotel/Motel Tax The appropriate use of lodging taxes (occupancy taxes) has long been the subject of debate. Historically, the bulk of lodging taxes has been used for marketing and promotion efforts regarding conferences and general tourism. In other areas, such as resorts, a lodging tax is an important element of the local transit funding formula. A lodging tax can be con sidered a specialize d sales tax placed only upon lodging bills. Taxation of this type has been used successfully in Park City, Utah; Sun Valley, Idaho; Telluride, Colorado; and Durango, Colorado. A lodging tax shares many of the advantages and disadvantages of a sales tax. A lodging tax creates inequities between different classes of visitors as it is only paid by over- night visitors. Local College Funding A strategysuccessfully applied in several similar cities to generate transit funding from college campuses is to levy a student activity fee for transit services or an established amount from the college- general fund. An activity fee will have to be approved by a majority of the students and will be applied each school semester or quarter. The additional funds will allow increased transit service for the college students, including more frequent service or later service. Another option that relates to local colleges is offering students a discounted pass. Offering discounts for college students increases their likelihood of riding more frequently. Students that reside on campus are often willing transit riders and this option may help boost ridership. Federal Transit Funding Through SAFETEA-LU, the federal government has substantially ~ 4 '~~~1- increased the transit funding levels for rural and small urban ~_ ~ ) 1 =~1 areas. Also, changes in the program requirements have provided . increased flexibility regarding the use of federal funds. Following are discussions of the federal transit funding programs for which the regional transit service may be eligible. LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page V-5 Financial Needs FTA Section 5309 -Capital Improvement Grants The FTA Section 5309 program is split into three categories-new starts, fixed guideway modernization, and transit vehicles and facilities. These funds were formerly apportioned directly by the FTA. For several years, however, Congress has earmarked these funds directly and there is no indication that this trend toward earmarking the funds will change. In recent fiscal years, rural and small urban areas have received a greater share of these funds than in previous years. FTA Section 5307 -Public Transportation for Urbanized Areas The FTA Section 5307 program makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for transitcapital/operating assistance and transportation- related planning in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as such by the US Department ofCommerce -Bureau of the Census. Eligible purposes include plan- ning, engineering design, and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement, overhaul/rebuilding, crime prevention, security equipment, and construction of maintenance/passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, vehicle overhaul/rebuilding, tracks, signals, communications, and computer hardware/software. All preventive maintenance costs and some of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit s ervice costs are considered capital costs. For urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more, funds are apportioned and flow directly to a designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive federal funds. For urbanized areas under 200,000 in population, the funds are apportioned to the governor of each state for distribution. However, a few areas under 200,000 in population have been designated as transportation management areas and receive apportionments directly. Operating assistance is not an eligible expense for urbanized areas with popula- tions of 200,000 or more. In these areas, at least one percent of the funding appor- tinned to each area must be used for transit enhancement activities such as LSC Page V-6 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Financial Needs historic preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, and enhanced access for the disabled. In those areas with a population of less than 200,000, 50 percent of the funding allocated by the governor can be used for operations. For every dollar the agencyuses for operations, the amount available for capital expenditures is reduced. FTA Section 5316 -Job Access and Reverse Commute Program The FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program, funded through TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, has an emphasis on using funds to provide transportation within rural areas that currently have little or no transit service. The list of eligible applicants includes states, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), counties, and public transit agencies, among others. A 50 percent non- Department of Transportation (DOT) match is required, but other federal funds maybe used as part of the match. According to SAFETEA-LU, this funding is now allocated by the state rather than the FTA. The grants are for aone-year period. Therefore, an agency may submit for this funding every year. FTA Section 5317 -New Freedom FTA Section 5317 New Freedom funding is for states to provide formula grants for operating and capital expenses related to transportation services for the disabled. The program's primary purpose is to increase access beyond the standard ADA paratransit requirements. Public and private transportation providers are eligible for the funding. The formula for this funding is consistent with the rural formula funding calculation. Transit Benefit Program The Transit Benefit Program is a provision within the Internal Revenue Code that permits an employer to pay for an employee's cost to travel to work in other than asingle-occupancy vehicle. The program is designed to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and conserve energy by encouraging employees to commute by means other than single-occupancy vehicles. Under Section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code, employers can provide up to $110 per month to those employees who commute to work via transit or vanpool. A vanpool vehicle must have a seating capacity of at least six adults, not including the driver, to qualify. The LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page V-7 Financial Needs employer can deduct these costs as business expenses. Employees do not report the subsidy as income for tax purposes since the subsidy is considered a qualified transportation fringe benefit. Under TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the Transit Benefit Program has become more flexible. Prior to TEA-21, the program could only be provided in addition to the employee's base salary. With TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the transit benefit program may be provided as before or can be provided in lieu of salary. In addition, the program may be provided as a cash-out option for employer-paid parking for employees. The Transit Benefit Program may not necessarily reduce an employer's payroll costs. Rather, it enables employers to provide additional benefits for employees without increasing total payroll expenses. Transportation and Community System Preservation Program The Transportation and Community System Preservation Program is funded by the Federal Highway Administration to provide discretionary grants for developing strategic transportation plans for local governments and communities. The goal of the program is to promote livable neighborhoods. Grant funds may be used to improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system, reduce adverse environmental impacts causedby transportation, and encourage economic devel- opment through access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. Tem orary Assistance for Needy Families States receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants to provide cash assistance, work opportunities, and necessary support services for needy familieswith children. States may choose to spend some of their TANF funding on transportation and related services for program beneficiaries. Head Start Program Head Start is a program of comprehensive services for economically-disadvantaged preschool children. Funds are distributed to local public and nonprofit agencies to provide child development and education services, as well as supportive services such as transportation. Head Start funding can be used to provide trans- LSC Page V-8 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Financial Needs portation service, acquire vehicles, and provide technical assistance to local Head Start centers. Other Federal Funds The US Department of Transportation funds other programs, including the Research and Special Programs Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's State and Community Highway Grants Program (which funds transit projects that promote safety). A wide variety ofother federal funding programs provide support for transportation programs for the elderly and handi- capped, including the following: ® Retired Senior Volunteer Program ® Title IIIB of The Older Americans Act ® Medicaid Title XIX ® Veterans' Affairs ® Job Training Partnership Act ® Developmental Disabilities ® Housing and Urban Development -Bridges to Work and Community Development Block Grants ® Department of Energy ® Vocational Rehabilitation o Health Resources and Services Administration ® Senior Opportunity Services ® Special Education Transportation ® Justice Department -Weed and Seed Program ® National Endowment for the Arts ® Agriculture Department -Rural Enterprise Community Grants ® Department of Commerce -Economic Development and Assistance Pro grams ® Environmental Protection Agency -Pollution Prevention Projects IiN ®IN lJ ~-Rl( Experience with transit systems across the nation underscores the critical impor- tance of dependable (preferably dedicated) sources of funding if the long-term viability of transit service is to be assured. Transit agencies that are dependent LSC KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3 Page V-5 Financial Needs upon annual appropriations and informal agreements have suffered from reduced ridership (because passengers are not sure if service will be provided from one year to the next), high driver turnover (contributing to low morale and a resulting high accident rate), and inhibited investment in both vehicles and facilities. The advantages of financial stability indicate that a mix of revenue sources is prudent. The availability of multiple revenue sources helps to avoid large swings in available funds, which can lead to detrimental reductions in service. As the benefits of transit service extend over more than one segment of the community, dependence upon more than one revenue source helps to ensure that costs and benefits are equitably allocated. In order to enhance their image as a sustainable city, Dubuque must have a transit system that is effective and reliable for its residents. To provide this service, there will be an increase in operating costs associated with expanded service. Additional fleet considerations may be required, which will also have associated costs. Funding opportunities exist that can make the additional service easier to afford for small communities. LSC Page V-10 KeyLine Operational Analysis, Technical Memorandum #3