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