1

Mountain Metropolitan Transit

Sustainability CommitteeMarch 20, 2009Presented By:

Sherre Ritenour & Tim McKinney

2

An EffectiveMountain Metropolitan Transit

Effective Customer Service Programs

Minimal stops at peak hours

Serve the Pikes Peak region

User friendly downtown station

Incorporated with land use planning

More direct routes

Ready for rail connectivity

3

Mountain Metropolitan Transit

(Today)

Attractive buses

7-day a week service

Friendly staff

Easy to use web site

Passes available on-line

Commuter buses

Clean buses/increased security

Park-and-rides

4

Transit Challenges Governance

CTAB, City Council, CAC, RTA Board, TAC, PPACG, FTA, CDOT

Funding Sources City, FTA, RTA, State each with different restrictions

on the use of funds

Operations Serve the transit dependent as a social program

Additional Issues 13C, Pension Fund, Paratransit and Human Service

Provider demand, Sales Tax

5

Governance Issues No common vision for the future of public transportation

services

Municipal governance over regional program

Multiple boards with citizens and elected officials with differing priorities

Staff time spent coordinating decision-making among CTAB, Council, CAC, RTA, FTA, CDOT, TAC, PPACG

General Fund Transit services compete with other city services for funding

6

Governance Issues-cont. Sales Tax dependent

Revenues from operations shared based on ridership between City and RTA

Expenditures shared based on fixed-route revenue service hours

City Fare revenue to General Fund

RTA Fare revenue to Transit operations

7

Finance

8

Funding Issues General Fund Priorities-

Reduce General Fund subsidy for Transit Services

Maximize the use of grant funds to offset operating expenses

Attract choice riders

Ensure service to individuals with disabilities and the Transit traditional rider

RTA Fund Priorities- Regional bus service

Funds not eligible for City staff

Equitable split

9

Funding Issues Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Priorities-

Support and expand Transit

Funds primarily for capital assistance

Ensure community investment/commitment

State Priorities- Intermittent capital assistance

Programs consistent with State-wide Transportation Plan

10

2009 City Revenue Budget$13,459,973

($7,487,022 General Fund, $2,906,644 Grant Fund, $2,536,447 Transit Revenue, and $529,861 Park ing System s, )

ADVERTISING $196,429 1% FOUNTAIN $367,710

3%CELL TOWER RENT

$18,379 0%

FIXED ROUTE FARE REVENUE $1,669,803

12%

PARATRANSIT FARE REVENUE $266,818

2%

PARKING SYSTEM ADMIN $529,861 4%

GENERAL FUND $7,487,022 56%

FTA GRANT FUNDS $2,906,644 22%

AMBILCAB FARES $17,308 0%

11

2009 CITY EXPENDITURE BUDGET$13,459,973

($10,553,329 General Fund and $2,906,644 Grant Fund)

DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE $529,861

4%

GRANT FUNDED PARATRANSIT

SERVICE $648,364 5%

PARATRANSIT SERVICE $672,600

5%

MATCH FOR GRANT-FUNDED SALARIES

AND SERVICES $726,661 5%

FIXED ROUTE FUEL 1,078,328 8%

HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDERS $368,000

3%

GRANT FUNDED SALARIES AND

BENEFITS $916,680 7%

GRANT FUNDED FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE

$1,341,600 10%

SALARIES AND BENEFITS $700,664

5%

PENSION CONTRIBUTION

$578,500 4%

GENERAL ADMIN COSTS $635,398 5%

FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE 5,263,318

39%

12

2009 PPRTA REVENUE BUDGET$9,177,963

($8,081,963 PPRTA and $1,096,000 Grant Fund)

RESERVES APPROPRIATED IN 2008 PAID BACK IN 2009 ($210,909) 2%

NON-TABOR RESERVES FOR

HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDERS $310,000

3% FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS $1,096,000

11%

ESTIMATED FARE REVENUE $880,372

9%

PROJECTED 2009 TAX REVENUE

$7,102,500 75%

13

2009 PPRTA EXPENDITURE BUDGET$9,177,963

($8,081,963 PPRTA and $1,096,000 Grant Fund)

FREX OPERATING EXPENSE $500,000 5%

ADA PARATRANSIT SERVICE $1,550,717

17%

HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDERS $310,000

3%

CONTRACTS/TEMPORARY PERSONNEL

$754,909 8%

FEDERAL FUNDS MATCH $488,296 5%

FUEL $1,278,571 14%

FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE $3,199,470

36%

PARATRANSIT MAINTENANCE GRANT FUNDS $376,000 4%

GRANT FUNDED FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE

$720,000 8%

14

REVISED ANNUAL FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE HOURS

RTA CITY Total System

2008 fixed-route (FR) service hours 80,371 101,131 181,502

2009 budget reductions in FR hours

4,490 21,312 25,802

2009 FR hours as of Jan. 1, 2009 75,881 79,819 155,700

Reduction in annual service hours based 2,607 20,235 22,842

Revised annual service hours 73,274 59,584 132,858

Percent change from 2008 service level -8.83% -41.08% 26.80%

15

Operational Issues

16

Operational Issues Increased demand in both fixed-route and paratransit

services (linked)

Decreased Public Transportation counter to National Green Effort

Aging population requires alternative modes

Increased fuel costs

Highest demand in 50 years and greatest budget challenges

17

System Wide ImprovementsPre November 2005 (Blue) 118,562 hours

Post March 2008 (Green) 181,502 hours

April 2009 (Red) 132,858 hours

Areas of Reductionfixed-route and paratransit

does not include FREX, Ute Pass, DASH

8

18

Service QualityTransit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual

Measure Level of Service A Level of Service C Mountain Metropolitan 2008

Frequency of Service

Headways < 10 minutes Headways 15-20 minutes

F (70-90 min.)

Hours of Service 19-24 hours of service per day

14-16 hours of service per day

C (17 hours per day on one route)

Transit Support Area Covered

Serve all major origins and destinations

¾ of higher density areas served

F (primarily within City limits)

Load/Standing Area

No passenger need sit next to another

All passengers can sit C or better (no crowding)

On-Time Performance

Service provided like clockwork

Vehicles often off headway

C or better

Travel Time Faster by transit than by auto

Not quite as fast as by auto but tolerable for

choice rider

F (avg. trip time is 2 ½ times personal vehicle)

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 100.

19

City Transit Employees vs. Service Hours

1

1918

12

9

23

10

12 12

17

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Years

Em

plo

yees

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Ser

vice

Ho

urs

Op

erat

ed

General Fund Employees- 100%

(Private Sector) Management ContractGeneral Fund Employees- 100%Grant Funded Employees- 20%

# of Service Hours

Ridership

Total Staff 33 31 30 29 22

20

Additional Challenges

13C required for Federal Funds

Pension Fund- all liability no control $600-$800k per year

Paratransit and Human Service Provider increased demand

Sales Tax dependent

21

“The Perfect Storm”

Increased Demand

Need for Green

Increased Costs

Reduced Service

Reduced Resources

22

Conclusion

Community must decide what the role of Public Transportation in the future of the Pikes Peak region will be.

Is it a fully integrated multi-modal system that meets the transportation needs of everyone? Or

Is it going to continue to be a town of “my horse and my five acres”?

23

Questions