Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-18-2006-7bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 18, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plan DEPARTMENT: Aging/Transportation PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: *Triangle Regional Transportation Jerry Passmore, 245-2009 Development Plan -Executive Summary AI Terry, 245-2002 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation from the consulting firms of Urbitran Associates, Inc. and Mundle & Associates on Phase One results of the comprehensive study commissioned by the NC Department of Transportation on possible coordination/consolidation of Wake, Durham, and Orange counties' community transportation services. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division met with County Managers and Board of Commissioners Chairs and agreed to pursue the selection of a consulting firm to review the feasibility of coordinating/consolidating Durham, Wake and Orange community transportation services. The proposal was made August 31, 2005 with Urbitran Associates, Inc., in association with Mundle and Associates, selected. Triangle .1 Council of Governments would assist with the process through coordination with North Carolina Department of Transportation. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public, Transportation Division requires two or more counties to agree to combine services to be considered a regional transit system and intends to offer funding incentives to those systems that do constitute a region. After consideration of full findings, Wake, Durham, and Orange County Commissioners would need to consider being a three county regional transit system, a two county regional transit system, or continue to provide services as a county department. A steering committee was selected, along with a Stakeholders Committee to invite community interest in the process. The Steering Committee has met three times and the Stakeholders met two times to continue with community input. A final Executive summary was provided to the County Managers and Board of Commissioners Chairs with recommendations from the consulting firms. The County Managers and Board Chairs of the three counties agreed on March 14, 2006 to have all Board of County Commissioners presented with the final Executive Summary of Phase One of the study, and discuss the possibility of continuing with Phase Two, a mare detailed analysis of pursuing the implementation stage of a consolidated or coordinated system of regional community transportation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division will provide all funding tc continue with the Regional Transportation Development Plan process. No matching funds are required from the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report/presentation from Urbitran, and consider approval of Phase Two of the Regional Transportation Development Plan process, consisting of further analysis of implementation impacts associated with the proposed coordination or consolidation of community transpartatian systems. Final decisions relative to coordination or consclidation rest solely with the individual elected boards of commissioners. 3 Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plan -Executive Summary Introduction The objective of the Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plan (TDP) is to identify the feasibility of consolidating and/or coordinating the services and functions of the community transportation services in Durham, Orange and Wake Counties..lust as the State of North Carolina embarked upon a comprehensive effort to coordinate human service transportation programs at the county level in the past 20 years, the value of regionalization of community transportation services represents a new opportunity. North Carolina has been at the forefront nationally regarding the coordination of community transportation services since an Executive Order was implemented in 1978. Since that time both public transit and community transportation services have evolved, with arguably the greatest variety of all those services existing in Durham, Orange and Wake Counties,. Each of the services provided in the three counties constitutes community transportation; however some differences exist between the services provided to customers. These differences are due in part to the varied organizational structures of the services, as well as the contrast between urban and rural areas, county size, and interaction with other transportation systems in the region. Complicating the mix of services and variety of operators is the fact that the public transit systems are usually provided through the city government, while the community transportation services are provided through the county government, In addition, within the Triangle there are several institutional and operating policies in place that impact the community transportation programs, including agreements limiting the operation of Orange Public Transportation within the towns of Chapel Hill and Canboro. Conversely, in Durham County, both ADA paratransit clients and community transportation program clients can share vehicles, since these services are operated under one contract.. Currently, the only public tt~ansit entity that operates in multiple counties within the region is the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), which has the additional ability to extend fixed route services into all of'the affected counties.. Benefits of Regionalization of Community Transportation Systems in the Triangle Prior work by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University also highlights a number of these broader perspectives on regionalization, including: • Benefits to riders • More effective regional, transportation and land use planning • Ability to address regional transportation problems • Adequate funding for transportation • Operational and administrative economies • Coordination or consolidation with special or rural public hansportation services Triangle Regionnl Transpa ration Development Plmr -Executive Summary q' Although not all of the above are specific to the Triangle region and this study, these perspectives indicate an array of issues that can be addressed through regionalization. Throughout this study, regional perspectives have also been considered as they relate to the affected population, not only in terms of services today, but also services in the future. It has been agreed that communication concepts such as one regional phone number and a centralized phone center, a common marketing and branding scheme and more information availability will significantly benefit future users of the services. Similarly, a regional entity has more potential to offer a variety of services: operated directly, contracted out, brokered with multiple providers and coordinated with other community based services operating outside the community transportation services network. The Triangle region's public transit and community transportation services have a number of similarities, but perhaps the most significant is the fact that the users of those services are primarily those that the Government Accountability Office in its report on transportation coordination has refereed to as `transportation disadvantaged' -youth, older adults, people with disabilities and the lower income population. These persons rely on the public transportation services to access school, jobs, medical and social services, government offices, recreation activities, etc. These persons would not typically think in terms of city and county borders when considering mobility options if it were not for the fact that the public transportation services that they need operate in restricted service areas. In addition, their mobility alternatives are also constrained by which agency sponsors which trip.. For example, someone could be eligible for both ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) paratransit service and Medicaid transportation, but would need to use the public transit network for the former trip and the community transportation network for the latter. Also there are a number of examples which indicate that institutional arrangements can be effectively developed to deliver these services, in whatever form and format is decided by the affected policy board. Many aspects of the current service that may benefit from change: • It is difficult to access information regarding the existing services in Durham and Wake, as neither service is advertised, and neither is listed, as OPT is, on the goh~imrgle com web site. • Stakeholders in Durham are unclear whether Access is for people with ADA- specific disabilities only, indicating a need for both information and a clearly defined identity for the Community Transportation program. • In Wake County, there were prior restrictions where rural general public patrons could not ride on services other than TRACS and, further, agencies are charged an administrative fee in addition to the fees assessed for transportation. Triangle Regional Trmr.~portation Development Plan -Executive Sunnnary 2 5 Experience would suggest that there could be difficulties in transitions whether those were changes in policies and procedures or service operators. But these transitions, when well managed and well developed, can be accomplished effectively and efficiently. When all factors are considered there are many arguments for implementing a regional community transportation service program,. Public Involvement Plan One of the key elements in this study was the development of the Public Involvement Plan which was crafted to ensure the potential for many of the affected stakeholders to participate in providing input to the plan.. The definition of stakeholders included a range of perspectives from elected officials, county professional staff; agency representatives and users of the services. The approach that was employed to elicit information for the study was to first meet with the affected program managers from each county. Following those sessions and the first Steering Committee meeting, priority was given to meeting with the County Board Chairs and County Administrators, followed by members of the Steering Committee, other agency staff and other affected parties, including customers of the service. Stakeholder input provided the following generalized conclusions: • Improving service to customers needed to be the first priority • Interest in understanding cost and service comparisons between counties • Recognition that fixed route transit operators' input in the study would be useful • There was general support for efforts toward a more seamless system and combination of programmatic opportunities Description of Existing Services Durham County Access DCA operates as a Durham County deparhnent, housed within the NC State University Cooperative Extension (CES), which fosters coordination between several programs in the County., DCA maintains two staff members within the CES: a full-time Transportation Coordinator and afull-time administrative assistant. These two positions report to the CES Director, who reports directly to the Deputy County Manager. DCA Adminishative staff operates in the Durham County Center, located on Foster Street in the City of Durham. The Transportation Coordinator is responsible for the overall planning, management and control of the system. Durham County Access (DCA) provides agency clients both subscription and demand response services, depending on their needs.. Subscription hips hansport the same individuals on a regularly scheduled basis, typically to the same destinations. Demand response trips are provided on a per-call basis, and customers must request their hips a day prior to the achtal trip date. With the Rural General Public service still relatively a Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plan - Ezectrtive Sununary 3 (o young program in Durham, DCA's primary source of ridership comes from clients of human service agencies. Although DCA operates the majority of its trips either to or from the City of Durham (which accounts for roughly 84% of the County's population), these trips do not supplant the ADA paratransit service provided by Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) within the City. L^ach service is managed independently and serves different markets, although both vehicle fleets are operated by the same contractor, Laidlaw, and operated from the same facility in Durham. Operating hours for the two systems are the same. Orange Public Transit Orange Public Transit (OPT) is a local government agency within the Orange County Department on Aging. The system is managed by a full-time Transportation Manager, who reports directly to the Executive Director of the Orange County Department on Aging. This director, in turn, reports to Office of the County Manager, specifically the Assistant County Manager whose focus in human services. OPT serves all of Orange County outside the Chapel Hill and Carrboro city limits., The majority of OPT's services are based on regularly scheduled subscription trips, which are based on human service agency clients, but operate at consistent times and follow the same routes.. These hips are open to the general public, either at regular stops along the route or through advance request by telephone, Currently OPT operates nine subscription routes, seven demand response routes, four contract-only services, and one route deviation trip. Of the three systems included in this study, OPT is the only one to operate fixed routes in addition to demand response human service agency or general public trips. Wake Coordinated Transportation Service The Wake Coordinated Transportation Service (WCTS) is managed within the Wake County Human Services department of Wake County. WCTS is a part of the Operations Division. The director of WCTS manages one other supervisory position directly. Staff includes a Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Supervisor, Senior Account Tech, and Transportation Broker. The WCZS Director reports to the Director of Operations/ Deputy Director of WCHS The Transportation Supervisor manages the WCTS call center, also known as the Transportation Services Center (TSC). The TSC includes four full-time and four part-time agents., The largest of the three counties, Wake County operates the most geographically expansive service through WCTS. In addition to human service agency trips, which account for 95% of the total system ridership, WCTS operates the most geographically expansive general public service through its Transportation and Rural Access (TRACS) program,. The majority of Wake County is coral in nature, outside of the principal urbanized areas of Raleigh and Cary. The coral population is the largest of any county in the state. Triangle Regiorrul Transportation Development Plm: -Executive Sunnnary 4 7 The TRACS service area is divided into four zones to focus the geographic scope of services. These service zones were designed to match regional centers established by Wake County as part of a regional approach to providing services due to the County's large size. The ability of customers to take hips across zone boundaries is considered a way to bridge certain gaps in the urban/regional fixed route public transportation systems, Issues and Opportunities To fully consider the issues and opportunities the following evaluation criteria were developed, along with corresponding issues: Table 1: Evaluation Criteria Criteria 'Issues • Service quality Customers Access to service • Eligibility and opportunity for use • Flexibili[ Operations Duplicative functions • Effect on service levels Cost/Funding Federal, state and local investment • Cost structure (in-house vs. contracted Institutional/Regulatory L.egislativc impacts • Institutional im acts Implementation Peaslbillty Barriers (institutional and operational) • Re ionalconsensus Although some of these criteria may have overlaps, for example operational tasks such as scheduling also impact customers, this list appeared to provide a variety of perspectives that could assist in the development of coordination/consolidation evaluations. In addition, once the above evaluation criteria were reviewed, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the various current and potential future alternatives were compared using those evaluation criteria. Development of Service Design Alternatives Three alternatives, one maintaining the existing infrastructure and two using TTA, were developed through the course of the study. These alternatives emerged through a discussion of specific as well as more general benefits which are linked to developing a regional approach to the community transportation program.. Alternative 1 -Moderate Coordination Alternative 2 -Moderate Consolidation Alternative 3 -Consolidation With regard to the staffing requirements of the three alternatives, the team selected one view of each alternative and carried that to conclusion. There may be other variations for Tiimrgle Regional Ti ansportation Development Plan - Dzecutive Srunnrmy 5 8 each of the alternatives, but for purposes of the analysis, only one, which was believed to he most representative, was discussed, For example, in Alternative 2, TTA could assume more of an active management lead, in which case there could he impacts to the existing programs and staffing in each county. The goal was to he consistent and bring forward some additional level of detail for comparison, Zhe three alternatives and their respective organization charts are described below: Alternative 1, Moderate Coordination, retains the existing infrastructure for each county, Uut includes a formalized inter-county agreement and work plan to build more coordination opportunities, such as marketing, ADA paratransit liaison, eta In addition there would be some opportunity for expanding the proposed Triangle Area Paratransit Coordinating Committee to include public transit operators. This process would not meet the NCDOT definition of a region and would therefore not Ue eligible for additional regional funding as described below. Exhibit 1: Moderate Coordination Organization Clrart Moderate Coordination ~---- i i Administrative _Staff Support (xi rBranding/MarketSng Uf:3ubcommittee r•County Services Subcommittee integration ''ADA Paratransit Liaison Alternative 2 proposes Moderate Consolidation, where TTA would assume the role of the managing agency, but the operating responsibilities would still reside in the individual counties. In this alternative the managing role of TTA would be delineated through an inter-agency agreement between the counties and TTA and could include the potential for the management role of TTA to be expanded over time.. To qualify for NCDOT regional funding, TTA would be the recipient of NCDOT funding, and the services must be coordinated through TTA, This could result in the Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plmr - L'secutive Srnnmary q opportunity to combine available federal and state .funding to create a mobility management position, which would both work towards developing a standardized operating program and include communications with fixed route operators regarding service connectivity. In addition, this position could facilitate the creation of the "locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan" required by SAFETEA-LU. )Cxhibit 2: Moderate Consolidation Organization Chart Moderate Consolidation Administrative .`:Services (z) Eli6i6ility Delermimnalion i DmntlinpJh4irke(ing Inter{ounty Services ADA Paratrans0 Liaison Vehicle Procuremem Operatlng pivisions ( x) Wake County Du~ham County '~ Orange County iT Applications (SC6eduling System; AVM) (N) Het 5ta1f Re~Wremenl Triangle Regional Ti ansportation Denelopnrent Plaa - L'xecutive Sr+nunmy 7 io Alternative .3, Consolidation, would shifr all of the three county Community Transportation Services to TTA through an inter-agency agreement This alternative would likely be initiated using the existing TTA organizafron shucture, but would transition to a stand alone department over time, This alternative would also be eligible for NCDOT regional funding as well as the potential for the mobility management position and local plan development as discussed in Alternative 2, Exhibit 3: Consolidation Organization Chart Consolidation Under TTA alManager (a) 'finance & I Bus Operations (a) I Other Department (a) 4dmkistrative Serv)as (a) Flnance (b) Humait Resources Brandin R/Markming ~' EligibililY Determination Procurement ~' ADA Paralransit Uaison W) Current Dapanment (b) Added Pontlians k) Operate as Conuael Services (h) Net Staff Requirement Paratransit Services (r) (,6) Wakc Division (c) t Durham Division (c) I[pp OranLc Division (c) Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plan - Drecutive Sunrnrcn~t 8 Evaluation of Alternatives -Regional Impacts Customers From the average customer's standpoint, the exact structure or administration of the service provider is of minimal importance compared to the day-to-day performance, understandability and ease of use, and reliability of the service itself, For this evaluation, criteria for customers focus on these issues of reliability (ability to reserve trips and receive hansportation), eligibility, access and flexibility. Benefits for agencies may arise in coordination and consolidation through improved record-keeping, communication, and processes for matching clients of agencies with a transportation provider, more seamless trip scheduling, and more uniform procedures, including tracking all transportation costs. Improved coordination with fixed route transit systems in the region will also present a series of benefits to customers, who may access transportation on a more universal level when trips, schedules, and information transcend the administrative or jurisdictional boundaries of individual systems,. Operations From an operations standpoint, the primary benefits to coordination and consolidation will come from greater efficiency in both capital and administrative expenditures and improved flexibility in the provision of public transportation services. None of the alternatives presented is likely to present any disadvantages from an operational perspective relative to the systems and how they function currently, Operations remain as they are currently structured as three separate systems or operating divisions in Alternatives 1 and 2, while full consolidation under TTA would represent the greatest potential benefit from an efficiency and regionalization standpoint. Ltst it tttTOnal/Implementation Institutional and regulatory benefits to be gained from regionalization coincide with benefits outlined aUove for Uoth customers and operations. That is, the potential exists to improve connections between different hansit operators, whether that is between county providers or between human servicehural general public systems and urban regional fixed route fransit systems. Furthermore, as connections are enhanced between these modes and systems, a successful model can be replicated for varying degrees of coordination with other neighboring counties. Implementation feasibility represents a challenge for each of the counties to some degree for any of the three alternatives presented, while full consolidation clearly requires the greatest administrative and institutional change. This should be minimized, however, as Trimrgle Regional Ti ansportatton Development Plan -Executive S:anmary 9 ~a TTA has an existing administrafive and operation as structure as well as a policy board consisting of representation from all three counties,. Evaluation of Alternatives -Local Impacts Passengers and Agencies Each of the three county transportation services include, to varying degrees, a mix of clientele from both human service agencies and the general public.. For the three alternatives considered, the potential benefits and disincentives to the customers, whether agency or general public certainly must be considered.. The current experiences of passengers and agencies vary widely from program to program and county to county. For example, seniors traveling to nutrition programs in Wake County are typically on subscription hips and only communicate with the system when they are not going to the Senior Center due to illness, schedule change, etc.. They usually connect directly with the driver or the supervisor, not through the call center. Caregivers were responsible for enrolling most of these passengers and their main interest is that the vehicle arrives on time and that the driver knows how to get to the center. Thus, changes in the program would have no impact on them. In Durham County, the Council for Senior Citizens has taken an active role in batching trips for their clientele and is thus more connected with the current way of doing business. In this example, there could be a short-term adjustment if the trip taking, scheduling and dispatch were transitioned to another entity. However, in the longer term the productivity of the service will improve when all transportation elements are performed by skilled transportation staff, In addition, although there may be some individual agencies that currently oversee trips, neither a county nor a regional system can be as effective as possible if there are multiple ways of scheduling rides. An important consideration for human service agency participation is the ability to refocus on their core responsibilities, such as determining eligibility and case management, and not handling transportation issues such as trip scheduling, service provider coordination, etc. These are hansportation issues that should be performed by the fransportation program. Consistency in trip costing, billing preparation and other administrative reporting should provide a better perspective on fully allocated transportation program costs. Evaluation of Alternatives -County Impacts This evaluation also recognizes the inherent differences between operations and administration among the three county systems, and thus some of the potential benefits and disincentives for each individual county are summarized below: Triangle Regiotral Transportation Development Plan - Executive Stntunar~~ 10 13 Dnrltam cotmty For Durham County residents, perhaps the number one benefit of a regional program would be an increase in opportunities for rural general public transportation. Currently, general public hips are constrained by the resources available and a focus on accommodating customers within existing human service agency trips. This limits both the scheduling flexibility of customers as well as access to the system by those residents whose origins or destinations do not coincide geographically with the travel patterns of agency clients. Regional services and the availability of a greater number of vehicles system-wide would allow greater flexibility in trip scheduling for both agencies and the general public, ideally opening up new areas of the region to direct access to the system.. Similarly, a broader program that could include taxi services or service routes could provide a better array of services. Durham County Access akeady benefits from the overlap in operating contracts with DATA's ADA parahansit program in the City of Durham, whereby vehicles from the two systems may be interchanged as needed by the single operator of the two services. Expanding this efficiency to a regional level would continue to improve the cost- effectiveness and efficiency of operations both locally and regionally. Marketing and branding of the system is another important benefit of regionalization. With limited resources available for general public trips, the incentive to aggressively market to the non-agency client is also constrained,. Thus, knowledge of the system's existence or how public transportation is provided is limited. A uniform branding of services tluoughout the region and expanded marketing efforts would ensure all residents are aware of what services are available and are not confused by a variety of systems providing similar (but not identical) services. Orange County Orange Public Transit currently engages in an aggressive marketing campaign with its available resources. With information about OPT services available on the gotriangle.org Internet site, as well as ongoing outreach from the County and OPT to promote the general public component of the service, brand awareness is good.. The rural general public service offered by OPT is heavily focused on service routes and combining the general public with regularly scheduled agency-oriented trips, This has proven effective and OPT's general public ridership is quite high, Nonetheless, there can be increased mobility options through demand-response service, for example, and opportunities to interact with other public operators such as Chapel Hill Transit and the removal of barriers to operations in municipalities within Orange County would increase customers' flexibility in trip planning and create a more efficient network. Ti Tangle Regional Tratrsportation Development Plan - E.cecutive Sunnnary 11 Ih' lhalre County Similar to Durham County, Wake County stands to benefit from a more uniform branding of services and the added marketing effort a regional system could provide. While the percentage of out-of county trips currently made by WCTS or the TRACS services is relatively low, removing cost and operational barriers to regional trips will also benefit customers, from both cost and scheduling standpoints. Wake County is geographically the largest of the three counties, As a result, operations of the TRACS coral general public service are divided into zones. This serves to control costs, as smaller, independent vendors are contracted to operate in the different zones. Passengers also pay a premium fare to cross zone boundaries within Wake County, In a regional system with more extensive vehicle and labor resources, these ]imitations may be mitigated, along with the cross county trips mentioned earlier, An added benefit to each of the counties through the development of a more consolidated system is that more efficient vehicle and trip scheduling will provide opportunities for more trips to help meet increased demand. As the population in the counties continues to increase significantly, and since the three county services are already reaching maximum service limits based on the availability of resources, this benefit will increase in importance.. Summary of Potential Funding Impacts The three alternatives may potentially impact the manner in which funds are distributed within the region, including local, state and federal sources, Currently, the local funds utilized by the counties fall into the following categories: passenger fares, contract revenues (i.e., revenues for service provided to other agencies) and local contributions. State funds for community transportation programs consist primarily of Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) funds. The three components of ROAP funds include: Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program (EDTAP), Rural General Public (RGP) Program, and Work First-Employment Transportation. In addition to ROAD, the counties also receive state administration funds, The state funds also include applicable federal funding, such as FTA Section 5.310 funds for the elderly and persons with disabilities as well as Section 5311 rural funds. In addition, TTA receives other federal funds such as 5307, which are formula funds for urban areas and 5309 that are capital earmarks.. There is potential to add the miles and hours of community hansportation services to increase the 5.307 formula share as well as for the community transportation programs to receive Section 5309 capital earmarks. Triangle Regraral Ti arrsportation Development Plan - Elecutive Summmry 12 ~5 Potential Incentive Funding for the Regional System One of the potential benefits of regionalism would be the ability to access additional State and Federal funds. This potential has become a reality based on several actions that have occurred since the reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act, SAFETEA- LU, which extends through 2009 and includes annual increases.. First, North Carolina has been selected to participate as one of seven states in a pilot program specified in the legislation that would test the impact of using Federal Section 5310 funds, which are targeted for' services to the elderly and people with disabilities, for' operating purposes. The North Carolina application for this pilot indicated that these funds would be available as incentives only to regional systems, which may use state EDTAP funds as the non-federal 50% match. The amount of the State's Section 5310 apportionment that can be utilized in this manner totals $1,045,404, and NCDOT must work through an allocation plan for the affected regional systems. Second, SAFETEA-LU included a significant increase in Federal Transit Administration Section 5.311 rural transportation funds apportioned to the state of approximately 50 percent, which total $18,290,385, These additional funds also could be used as an incentive for regional systems. The non-federal 50% match for the 5311 funds could come from North Carolina's Rural General Public funds.. At the moment, NCDOT indicates there is a significant amount of'these funds available which could be used to expand Rural General Public services or create partnerships with fixed route operators to extend those services to growing portions of rural counties. To illustrate the potential partnering opportunities, the funds that will be allocated to the region based on the 2006-2007 ROAP process have been shown to match potentially available Section 5310 and 5311 funds, which results in an annual amount of $1,115,708. The total, especially for 5311 funds, could be increased through the match of local funds. The build-up showing the federal and non-federal funds is presented in Table 2, It should be reinforced that the ability to access these funds is limited to regional systems, which would include either Alternatives 2 or 3 from this report. Additionally, regional systems will receive priority consideration for ITS and capital expenditures under new incentive programs at the state level. These funds could then be used to create a uniform scheduling and dispatch technology and a long term capital program. Triangle Regional Ti~~nrtsportatiorr Development Plarr - E.cecutive Summary 13 !~v Table 2: Potential Incentive Funding for the Regional System Federnl Share Non-Federal 50% Match 50% Total Section 5.310 $314,622 -- $314,622 Durham County (a) - - $88,514 $88,514 Orange Comity (a) -- $55,124 $55,124 Wake County (a) -- $170,984 $170,984 Subtotal $314,622 $.314,622 $629,244 Section 5.311 $243,232 - $24.3,232 Durham County (b) - - $.39,838 $39,8.38 Orange County (b) - - $49,662 $49,662 Wake County (G) -- $153,732 $153,732 Subtotal $24.3,232 $24.3,232 $486,464 70TAL. $557,854 $557,854 $1,115,708 (a) Source oJnon fedora! matching funds though EUTAP (b) Source of na+ federal nmtdiingfiardr through RGP Finally, SAFETEA-LU should further expand funding opportunities with additional resourcestncluded for New Freedom funds, which provide additional services to people with disabilities beyond those required by ADA and the lob Access Reverse Commute (.IARC) program, which will be distributed by formula.. Also, the FTA has been searching for potential demonstration sites for a Mobility Management position, which expands the concept of human service coordination to include more programs, which could be applicable in the Triangle. Summary of Cost Impacts The cost impacts of each service design alternative were developed using the FY 2004 OPSTATS data for expenses.. The baseline cost data for each system are shown in Table 3. There are currently 10 administrative employees among the three county agencies. The average administrative expense is $51,706 per employee- The baseline expense for operations is $4,.351,262,. These data serve as input to developing the cost impacts for each of the service design alternatives. Table 3: Baseline Data DCA OPT !' WCTS TOTAL -.'' Administrative Staff (a) 2 3 5 10 Administrative Expense $74,012 $198,OL3 $245,037 $517,062 Admin. Expense per Employee $37,006 $66,004 $49,007 551,706 Operations Cost $851,612 5812,7.30 52,686,920 54,.351,262 TotalO eratin Costs $925,624 $1,010,743 $2,931,957 $4,868,324 Source FY 3009 OPSTiI T,S Reports Trimrgle Regional Transportation Developnretrt Plan -Executive Sunurrary 14 i~t Cost Impacts by Alternative A summary of staffing assumptions for each alternative is presented in Table 4, followed by cost impacts for all alternatives in Table 5. Por each alternative, assumptions were made as to the number of existing administrative positions that would be carried forward into the alternative. In addition, the costs for new adminishative positions are estimated using the average administrative expense per employee. All of the alternatives assume that the cost of operations will be the same as the current system (i,e. baseline operations cost). Table 4: Summary of Alternatives -Staffing E i ti $t ff Numbcrof Cu re t ALTERNATIVES (Staff Transitions) x s ng a r n Positions ..Moderate Coordination Moderate Consolidation Consolidation Durham County Access Trans ortation Coordinator 1 I 1 - Administrative Assistant 1 I - - - - Orange Public Transit Mana er I 1 1 - - Assistant Mana er I 1 1 - AdministrativeAssistant I I 1 -- Wake Coordinated Transportation Services Transportation Planner III 1 I 1 - - TransportationCoordinator I 1 1 -- Transportation Supervisor I 1 1 1 Senior Account Tech I I - - - - Transportation Broker I I 1 1 SUBTOTAL 10 10 8 2 NEW STAFF Administrative Services - - - - - - - - Su ort Services - - I t - - O orations/Schedulin -- I S ecial Pro'ects - - 1 I I Service Deliver -- -- -- 2 SUBTOTAL 0 2 2 4 TOTAL STAFFING NEEDS Transition and New Sta l0 12 ]0 6 The current administrative staffing needs discussed above do not include several support functions currently provided by the contractors (Laidlaw in Durham County and IVIV Transportation smaller vendors in Wake County).. These functions include call intake, trip scheduling and agency billings. It is assumed that during the transition period contractors will continue to provide these services to TTA. In the future, TTA will have an opportunity to restructure and consolidate such functions to maximize the cost efficiency. Triangle Regiorralli arrsportatiorr Developnrerrt Plan -Executive Sunmrary 1.5 i8 During the development of administrative staffing needs presented above no attempt was made to identify which current staff members might transfer in to new positions under moderate consolidation and consolidation alternatives. It is assumed that current staff will be offered an opportunity to apply for the new positions under TTA. Table 5: Summary of Cost Impacts -All Alternatives ALTERNATIVES Current S stem Moderate Coordination Moderate Consolidation Consolidation' Baseline Operations Cost $4,351,262 $4,351,262 $4,351,262 $4,351,262 Existing Admin. Positions 10 10 8 2 Existing Adminishative Costs $517,062 $517,062 $413,649 $138,289 New Admin. Positions - - 2 2 4 Additional Admin. Costs -- $103,412 $103,412 $276,580 Total Operating Cost $4,868,324 $4,971,736 $4,868,324 $4,766,131 Net Costlmpact -- $103,412 t$I02,193) Total Admin. Positions 10 12 t0 6 Changes in TAB/TSB Structure Changes to the existing advisory board stmctures within each county's community transportation services would only occur in the full consolidation alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 require no change in TAB/TSB structure, authority or responsibility. Under Alternative .3, a committee should be created which allows for' agency representation by county. This group would be a subcommittee of the TTA Board and have regular input and updates from TTA staff responsible for the Community Transportation Program services.. A Policy Level Advisory Committee, similar to the Steering Group, should also be created. This group would be a subcommittee of the TTA Board, have regular input and updates from TTA staff, and have the responsibility of periodic reporting to the County Chairs and Managers. Governance of New Regional Agency Governance changes would vary according to the alternative selected, as follows: Moderate Coordination: No impact on the governance of community transportation services is expected. Each county will continue to be responsible for the current governance activities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and scope of work would be developed and signed by all three counties to begin a more formalized coordination program Triangle Regional Transportation Development Plan -lszecutive Sununaiy 1G is Moderate Consolidation: • TTA will assume the responsibility to coordinate and manage administrative functions and development ofservice/performance standards for operations • Durham, Orange and Wake Counties and TTA will enter into a contract agreement or develop an MOU detailing responsibilities of each organization Consolidation under TTA: • TTA will assume responsibility for all administrative and operational functions from Durham, Orange and Wake Counties • Each county will transfer its community transportation assets and contracts to TTA. The TTA Board will be responsible for establishing policy direction with input from the advisory panel, • TTA staff will be responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of community transportation services in the three-county region Conclusion This report demonstrates the feasibility and benefit of regionalizing the community transportation systems in the Triangle region, from both the customer and financial/organizational perspectives. Additionally, new funding programs and incentives for the regionalization of services reinforce these potential benefits to customers and operators. Phase 1 of the scope of work was to conduct a feasibility study of regionalization of community transportation systems in the Triangle region. Based on the results of the work to date, the regionalization of community transportation services is clearly feasible and has the potential to improve overall service to the customer, service to affected agencies, as well as provide improved linkages to the fixed route network, which often serves many of the same customers. A second phase of study, if supported by the affected counties, would be to create a Transition-Implementation Plan. This plan would further develop and detail the organizational structures, operating costs and capital costs associated with the alternative or alternatives under consideration and provide a guide to implementation of the newly structured services, Regional Ti~ansportatiar Development Plan - Executive S:rnnnmy 17