Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 08/03/1994Draft minutes to be approved by the Board at the August 17, 1994 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1994 5:42-7:50 P.M. FOR REFERENCE: Chair -- Colin Gerety 229-2523 Vice Chair -- David Lemesany 482-7854 Council Liaison - Will Smith 223-0425 Staff Liaison - Rick Ensdorff 221-6608 Board Secretary - Cindy Scott 221-6608 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Beatty, Mark Egeland, Colin Gerety, Elizabeth Hudetz, Paul Perlmutter, and Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sara Frazier, Dolores Highfield, and Dave Lemesany. STAFF/COUNCIL PRESENT: Rick Ensdorff; Cindy Scott; Will Smith; Tom Frazier, John Daggett, and Carolyn Harmes - Transfort GUESTS PRESENT: Sandy Lemberg The meeting was called to order at 5:42 p.m. AGENDA: A. PUBLIC COMMENT B. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Paratransit Fares 2. US 287/CO 14 Corridor 3. Other Business A. PUBLIC COMMENT There being no one here at this time, the Board moved on to the next item. B.I. PARATRANSIT FARES Frazier had Harmes pass out a new graph that shows the projections talked about at the last meeting are accurate. There will be a $190,000 shortfall if we continue to provide the services with DAR. How do we control the budget and should a fare be charged are the two questions that the presentation tonight will focus on. The average cost per trip is now $12. CAV charges $6, Shamrock is $6.20 and DAR is $3. What can we do to control the expenses? Increase revenue/decrease expenditures - this is fairly difficult to do. They referred back to City Council policies. In 1992, there was a priority system set up that says if service ever had to be restricted then the priority system would be: 1. ADA eligible individuals who are doing non -subscription trips; 2. ADA eligible subscription trips; 3. Those who do not have a disability, but are 60 and over. One of the most obvious things we would do is go back to this policy in order to bring this under control. The last thing that we are looking to do is renegotiate contracts with the road operators. See if we can get them to do things at a lower cost or provide group rates for multiple riders going to such destinations as meal sites. Another piece of renegotiating the contracts is with the CAV/SAINT programs - working with United Way to get them to fund SAINT entirely. The other part of this is the increase of revenues, which means increasing fares. This was discussed at the last presentation. The three options again are: $1; $1.50; and a variable rate of $1.50 ADA/$1.75 non-ADA. Transfort generates $100,000 per year in the fare/pass program so if we have a policy that paratransit has to generate the same amount of money in fares/passes as the fixed route does, what would the cost be? For ADA eligible, it would be $1.50 a trip, for non-ADA eligible individual it would be about a $1.75. Those are the areas that they took a look at and none of them are what you would say significant in covering the total cost of the program, because there is a projected cost of over $731,000 in 1994 and in all of those by itself, it doesn't even come close to covering all those costs. For 1995, it could do that, but we would have to have some significant re -negotiations on the contracts. Frazier then went over the Fares Sheet hand out (dated August 3, 1994). This sheet shows how much revenues could be generated from different scenarios. With that information and utilizing the Council's policy of saying there are priorities if we have a tough situation, Transfort will be making these recommendations to Council: 1. Work with DAR customers on a more active basis to get them on Transfort buses; 2. Work with CAV and United Way to transfer SAINT over to the CAV and United Way budgets. This is strongly supported by the CAV Board. -2- y i \ 3. Re -negotiate the contracts with Shamrock and CAV. If we can't negotiate to a level which we think is appropriate, then one of our options is the same as last year - do the service ourselves. 4. Limit the service to ADA eligible only and to strictly enforce the ADA regulations. 5. Establish a policy of charging twice the fixed route fare - $1.50 per ride. 6. Use $78,000 from Route 10 (which is frozen) to cover the shortage for DAR. These are the staff recommendations for the August 16 Council meeting* (*Frazier noted that this could change.) If this occurs in 1994, there will obviously be an impact on the elderly - there will be a significant reduction in trips; a reduction in service; an increased cost that will impact especially those on a fixed income. There will be a reduced cost to the city's budget. This will be supportive to the SAINT project. It will flourish. Daggett went over page 3 of the DAR packet. Frazier asked if the Board had any questions, would like to make a recommendation at this point, or opt to not make a recommendation. The Board had a few questions and then decided to go through staffs recommendations one at a time to see if the Board has any comments/is in agreement with them. 1. Get people on Transfort - Charging a fare for DAR will get them to take Transfort instead. Beatty cautioned staff on determining if someone is ADA eligible. Frazier stated that Colorado Springs has a city nurse who takes care of that determination. 2. Change SAINT to United Way funding - Board agreed 3. Re -negotiate contracts - Board agreed Chair Gerety opted to skip 4. 5. Use Route 10 money ($78,000) - Board agreed 6. Charge twice the fixed route fare (.75) - Board agreed After a discussion, the Board agreed to make the recommendation to Council that they establish some kind of contingency fund perhaps separate from Transfort and that it be administered outside of transportation agencies. The board will send a letter and it will contain the Board's concern about judging ADA eligibility and a contingency for those who cannot afford it administered outside the DAR transportation program. The Board also agreed to recommend the introduction of service for the elderly at a $4.00 rate (which is an intermediate rate and they will also have other options such as SAINT, hiring a driver, or using a taxi service). They will also suggest looking at passes for DAR. Chair Gerety will draft a letter on behalf of the Board to the City Council. BREAK -3- B.2. US 287/CO 14 CORRIDOR STUDY Ensdorff stated that the intent of this study was to take the Northeast Area Transportation Study (NEATS) and move it along to a different level. That level was to look at ways to manage the existing corridor of US 287/CO 14. This decision was made by Council in 1992. What staff focused on is to how to best manage the corridor. An element of that was to work with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and do an access control plan on the corridor which is required by state law and to do a landscaping plan that could possibly have some tie in together. They will also do a vibration and impact study on historic buildings downtown along Riverside and Jefferson and a corridor study in association with the access study which looks at some of the bigger picture things that came out of the NEATS: is there a need for intersection improvements, etc. A citizen's group has been formed and has been working on this issue. As the group worked, they found that the issues related to the bypass are still very important. The citizen's group came to a consensus on feeling like an element was missing from the regional scope of the project. They felt they still had to discuss the bypass issue and they hit upon a direction that they felt had a lot of promise. The general premise is that there are no funds available to build a new roadway. In years past, everyone thought the solution to the problem was to build a new roadway. The NEAT study tried to define the problem better, but still came to the solution of building a new road. Instead of choosing this option, Council directed staff to look at the existing corridor. This led to the creation of the group now working on this direction. The group is looking at the existing Interstate system, but they first must understand why the trucking industry chooses to use the US 287/CO 14 corridor. Out of that process, they are going to try to identify ways to entice or provide incentives (disincentives) to have the trucking industry make different choices (use the interstate system). Ensdorff noted that this is bigger than Fort Collins - more players need to be involved, such as CDOT, representatives from the American Trucking industry, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Wyoming Department of Transportation and a whole level of political involvement such as the mayors of Cheyenne, Laramie, Fort Collins, etc. At this point they are making contacts and developing relationships with those key players at the highest level possible. A. Ray Chamberlain, the past director of the CDOT, is now the head lobbyist for the American Trucking Association. Ensdorff hopes to be able to use this to his advantage. A nationwide search is also being conducted to find out how other cities have dealt with a similar problem. Durango, Colorado is dealing with the same problem right now. Hopefully, there will be a roundtable in September of all the groups mentioned to get together and exchange information and points of view and then a second meeting will be held to discuss solutions. Ensdorff suggested that this project would be one that a Transportation Board member should "serve" on rather than just monitor. Paul Perlmutter volunteered his participation with this group. The group meets every 4th Thursday of the month. Gerety gave positive feedback on the participatory effort Ensdorff just described. -4- E Chair Gerety noted that Sandy Lemberg is here to comment on this issue, he then turned the floor over to him. Sandy Lemberg: Referred to a Council meeting he attended two weeks ago where he asked what council action has been taken on the US 28711CO 14 Corridor. He read Council's resolution on the NEATS recommendation regarding the direction to immediately begin studies to determine a specific alignment and acquire right of way north of Douglas Road. He then specifically asked the Council during citizen comment whether in fact there had been subsequent action on this. He stated that the Council refused to respond, particularly the Mayor was adamant and would not give him the time of day on this and finally Gina reiterated the stuff about the NEAT study, but didn't mention any subsequent action. The rest of the Council Members just sat there like dead ducks. He stated that his point is that he then talked with Wanda, the City Clerk, who to him is one of the most conscientious people on City staff and she provided him with the NEAT Study and assured him that there had been no subsequent action. He stated that Council better get on the ball, you show contempt for the common citizen that comes to your meetings, you don't give them the time of day. A lot of people are getting fed up with it. At the very least, if someone asks a question during citizen participation, give them an answer. Council Liaison Smith responded that sometimes it is difficult to do that in terms of citizen participation because then what happens is you just develop an open forum of continuous commentary. Lemberg feels that policy is not the answer and he thinks that policy should be changed, that information should be made available. There are funds for a new road way available, you just have ttogo to the MPO, go to the Upper Front Range and you hammer on them until you get it. They are going to build a huge $30 million bypass outside Berthoud which is not needed. Ensdorff ccorrectedLemberg's statement - the MPO is funding $7,000 in geometric and safety improvements for the Berthoud Bypass, NOT $30 million. Every transportation group should be focused on this issue of the Jefferson Street corridor. Something has got to be done and needs to be done right now. The city was poorly planned 30 years ago and it continues to be. A lot of people are very unhappy with this. Smith stated that part of the difficulty is that someone will be inconvenienced. Chair Gerety suggested that the best way for Lemberg to help this problem is to participate in the group that is currently working on the corridor study. Lemberg stressed again that it is poor planning that has gotten the city in this dilemma. Ensdorff invited Lemberg to come in and see him so he can share all the accurate information with him. B.3. OTHER BUSINESS Board Member Valentine would like to have a discussion at a later meeting on the issue of one way streets. Chair Gerety reminded the Board that it is nearing time to re-elect officers. This should be on the September agenda. -5- Board Member Frazier had a question about the rail study money ($15,000) - Ensdorff will mention it at the next meeting. Board Member Beatty asked about DIA transportation planning for Fort Collins/Loveland Airport, what is the current status. Council Liaison Smith responded that Frank Bruno of City staff is the direct contact person and would have all that information. For the next regular meeting of August 17, Ensdorff proposes two items for the agenda: an update on the bikeway plan and where the MPO is going with Transportation Demand Management and the Transportation Improvement Plan. Council Liaison Smith noted that many people felt left out of the Regional Transportation Plan process at the end. Ensdorff stated that everyone will be invited to the open houses to be held later this month and will receive a direct mailing with more information on them. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m. 4 C'�Jq#- - Cindy L. cott, Secretary