Note: The screen settings are set to fit wide screen monitors.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
West Michigan Transit Linkages Study Wednesday, June 4 th, :00 a.m. Grand Valley State University Kirkhof Center Conference Room 2266.
Advertisements

2012 Florida TD Conference -- Orlando National Transit Database The Federal Transit Administration collects operating data from rural agencies receiving.
Texas Coordination Institute August,  Schedule / Dispatch  Maintenance  Driver Training  Vehicle Sharing.
Puyallup IT & Communications Puyallup Services and South Sound 911 TOPICS Summary – Current Direction of IT & Communications South Sound Updates Puyallup.
What is Coordinated Services? Common Goals Increase ridership Minimize expenses Maximize Revenues Build Partnerships Share Resources Reduce duplication.
Five-Year Mass Transit Fund Financial Forecast April 6,
Public Transportation & Persons With Special Transportation Needs House Transportation Committee February 12, 2013 Tom Hingson Transportation Services.
Results from Transportation Survey Southern 38 Counties (Area 4)
Presented on January 20, ◦ Services 2 3 fixed routes, 1 bus 23 vans, 19 daily vehicle runs.
Airport Shuttle Agreements Presented by: John McCarthy GO Airport Express.
Results from Transportation Survey Twin Cities Metro Area (Area 3)
Mountain Mobility Buncombe County’s Community Transportation System.
Keeping Harris County Moving.. Background Transit needs study in Commissioned by H-GAC and Harris County Transportation Coordinated Council.
Utah Transit Authority Proposed Changes to ADA Paratransit Services October 5, 2015 John M. Inglish, CEO/General Manager.
IMPLEMENTING THE “NEW” SECTION 5310 PROGRAM STATE PROGRAMS MEETING AUGUST
Transit Agency Status FY Current Financial Position Current Operations Service Statistics/Trends Funding Statistics/Trends Other Information/Assumptions.
1 REGIONAL SERVICE PLANNING WEBSITE
WYDOT Transit Program Reporting 101 June 16, 2011 Taylor J. Rossetti Joni Kithas Harlan.
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lecture 19:Cost Models for Public Transportation.
1 Presented to the Transportation Planning Board October 15, 2008 Item 9 Metrobus Priority Corridor Network.
Rod Weis, Texas A&M University Lana Wolken, Texas A&M University Joe Richmond, University of North Texas Operating Your Own System Versus Contracting.
Freight, Logistics & Passenger Operations FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL MAINTENANCE CAPITAL GRANTS October 28, 2015.
Results from Transportation Survey North East MN (Area 2)
Ride in Kane Paratransit Service Kane County. Ride in Kane was established in 2008 through the efforts of the Kane County Paratransit Coordinating Counsel.
Results from Transportation Survey Northwest MN (Area 1)
Transport.tamu.edu TAMING WILD BRONCOS Transit Management Changes, Financing, Training, Staffing Rod Weis, Texas A&M University Lana Wolken, Texas A&M.
1 Perspectives on Reauthorization Robert Tuccillo Associate Administrator for Budget and Policy/ CFO Federal Transit Administration State of Good Repair.
Implications for the Taxi Industry and Riders Bruce Schaller Principal, Schaller Consulting February 17, 2016 California Senate Oversight Hearing.
Bus Program Operating Costs TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE July 2, 2003.
Partnering with Clients & Paratransit Providers for Brokerage Success.
Medicaid Transportation Study of Policy and Practices in the Metropolitan Washington Region August 2016.
ADA and Access-a-Ride Fundamentals Board of Directors Operations and Customer Service Committee July 29, 2014.
Public Transit & Transportation Network Companies
Multi Agency Exchange May 16, 2017.
Presented by: RLS & Associates, Inc.
Welcome & Introductions
Matching FTA Dollars CASTA Spring 2017.
Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority (RTA) 2016 Transit Planning Process Funded through a Section 5304 Planning Grant 5/23/2018.
Strategies to integrate third-party service providers
Flagler County Fixed Route Transit Operation Plan
Comprehensive Operational Review Final Report Presentation
Future Construction FasTracks Corridors Federal Funding Analysis
and Transportation Impacts
Strategies to integrate third-party service providers
Regional Transit Formula Fund Policies Section 5307/5340 – Urbanized Formula Fund Section 5337 – State of Good Repair Section 5339 – Bus and Bus Facilities.
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2018/2019
Industry Experience Sub-Group
Innovative Fare Programs for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
Promoting Shared Rides: Where do Transit Agencies Fit?
Item XX Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2018/2019
The Long-Term Care Imperative 2009 Legislative Agenda
The Federal Transit Administration's “Capital Cost of Contracting”
USDOT ADA Service Requirements
Transportation Services Brokerage
Where’s My Ride William Tsuei Director of IT.
INNOVATIVE SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
April 23, 2018.
Transportation Services
Take Your Money and Run! Federal Transit Funding Opportunities
Capital Improvement Plans
Office of Transit Larry Buckel Manager.
Transportation Services
CUTRIC: Specialized and Conventional Transit Integration Project
Transit Financials - Round Table Discussion
Reasonable Modification
ADA Eligibility Process
RTC RIDE Service Improvement Recommendations
National Transit Database Reporting Requirements
FREEdom and Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP)
DART Financial Plan and Fare Structure
Presentation transcript:

Cost Subgroup Report to the Metro Mobility Task Force January 4th Meeting Note: The screen settings are set to fit wide screen monitors. If you need to print your slides be sure to check “scale to fit” in your print settings. January 10, 2018

Topics Reviewed Capital funding alternatives Current operating costs Alternative provider service models and costs DHS funded rides

Breakdown of Metro Mobility Costs Cost Per Trip Breakdown Based on 2016 Actuals   Cost per Trip Contractor Costs (includes Taxi and STS) $49,769,865 # Trips 2,233,229 Average Contractor Cost Per Trip $22.29 Admin (HR, IT, Payroll, Budgeting, Accounting, Insurance) 11.74% $2.62 Facility Lease or Amortization 2.98% $0.66 Facility Maintenance 0.33% $0.07 Utilities 0.52% $0.12 Direct Operating Costs (Driver, Dispatch, reservationist, scheduler) 69.96% $15.59 Drivers 87.59% $13.65 Dispatchers 5.68% $.89 Reservationists 5.46% $.85 Schedulers 1.27% $.20 Vehicle Maintenance 9.53% $2.12

Breakdown of Metro Mobility Costs Drug and Alcohol Program   0.24% $0.05 Driver Training 0.67% $0.15 Other 4.02% $0.90 Fuel $1.76 Met Council Admin (Managers, Customer Service, contract oversight, IT, Legal, Payroll, HR, Technology, Communications) $1.97 Cost Per Passenger w/o Vehicle Capital and Equipment $26.01 Add: Vehicles and Equipment *$3.88 Total Cost $29.89 Average Trip Length (Includes Agency Service) 9.37 * Based on 2012-2016 actual fleet purchases and ridership

Survey of Regulatory Requirements Regulatory Category for ADA Complementary Service Federal/State 1 Equal response time for rides requiring accessible vehicle Federal 2 Zero denials 3 Random Drug and Alcohol Sampling 4 Passenger Escort 5 Disability Awareness Training 6 Reasonable Suspicion Procedures 7 DVS and Criminal Records Review (initial and annual) 8 Service quality reporting (on-time pickups, appts, on-board time) 9 Shared Ride 10 Radio dispatch – immediate response time State 11 Insurance Minimums and Council Indemnification

Survey of Regulatory Requirements Survey sent to Uber, Lyft, 10/10 Taxi, Transportation Plus, Transit Team, First Transit Questions for each category were: Does your current service model meet standard? If model doesn’t meet standard, does your company have an interest in meeting standard? What is the estimated cost of meeting each standard? Survey results incorporated into service level options developed by Industry subgroup

Cost Information Average provider cost per 11.2 mile trip in 2016 * Does not include the capital cost of accessible vehicles 1 Prices may vary based on demand Public transit is shared ride service. Rides that are provided through a non-shared service model are not reportable as public transit. Loss of federal formula funds for an 11.2 mile trip is approximately $4.70/trip. Provider Cost Transportation Plus $26.30 10/10 Taxi $24.00* Transit Team $28.85 First Transit South $29.36 First Transit East $29.31 Uber $17.00*1 Lyft $22.00*1

Vehicle Lease Information Concept of Metro Mobility leased vehicles Funding Implications Over the past 5 years, approximately 50% of funding for vehicles comes from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and 50% from Regional Transit Capital (RTC) RTC can not be used for lease expenses Federal government prefers to own assets – must provide a compelling business reason to lease Metro Mobility Capital cost per passenger trip for buses and technology Capital investment in buses and bus technology 2012-2016 = $38.3M Average $3.88/per passenger trip Challenges Enterprise does not currently allow vehicle subleases – Council’s current flexibility to reassign service and vehicles is compromised Rates are unknown NOTE: This was not discusses at the meeting, but as a follow-up, a significant “negative” to allowing the contractors to lease the vehicles directly from the vehicle provider is that the Council risks a loss of control over the deployment and redeployment of vehicles between providers as demand changes or performance warrants. Under the current agreements, contractors are not guaranteed levels of service and there have been cases where the Council transferred vehicles from one provider to another as part of a reassignment of service areas.

Summary of Cost Items Varying service models between: Metro Mobility,TNCs and taxis that impact costs. Only Metro Mobility is fully compliant with FTA ADA complementary service requirements. Taxis may be interested in becoming fully compliant. TNCs are not interested in becoming fully compliant. Public transit is shared ride service. Any non-shared service provided is not reportable to the FTA with an average loss in funding of about $4.70/trip. Insufficient information available regarding leased vehicles to make a recommendation.

Dept. of Human Services (DHS) Client Rides on Metro Mobility Waivered Service Transportation - Medicaid Recipients transportation for services in the community with the exception of transportation authorized as pat of full-day Day Training and Habilitation (DT&H). Must be necessary to meet individuals’ needs as stated in support plan Nonemergency Medical Transportation –Medical Assistance (MA) Recipients Provides the safest, most appropriate and cost-effective mode of transportation to get to and from medical appointments Current Metro Mobility Model – there is no mechanism to draw down additional Medicaid funding Additional State and Federal Medicaid funding may be available by providing a different service model to recipients of MA and waiver services An estimated $8.5 million in additional federal funds may be available with a different service delivery model

DHS Client Rides on Metro Mobility Challenges Creativity/resolution is restricted by inability to share data between agencies Metro Mobility fares are limited to twice the local fixed route fare with the exception of trips to a social service agency DHS Medicaid programs are bound to federal “usual and customer” charge requirements meaning a provider cannot charge more for a covered client than what is charged to other customers. Medicaid program riders pay the same fare as other eligible riders Metro Mobility’s fare of $3.50 in the off-peak and $4.50 in the peak is an inexpensive option for agencies Currently, DT&H transportation rates represented in the framework are suppressed per MN Statute 256B.4913. True framework rates for the transportation portion of DT & H rates will not be in effect until January 2021

Topics for Further Discussion Need for consistent funding source Potential investments: Technical development Marketing Customer service

Potential Legislative Recommendations Data sharing between state agencies Interagency Coordination Better cross-utilization of funds – remove silos