Loading...
PTAC Agenda 03/20/2018 Public Transit Advisory Committee Collier County Government Administration- Building F 3299 Tamiami Trail East – Suite 501 IT Training Room Naples, Florida March 20, 2018 3:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 20, 2018 Minutes 5. Committee Action a. Fare Study b. Endorse the renewal of Members 6. Reports and Presentations a. Performance Measure b. TDP Goals and Objectives ES c. Vendor Contract Amendment 7. Member Comments 8. Public Comments 9. Next Meeting Date – March 20, 2018 10. Adjournment Two or more members of the Board of County Commissioners may be present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be an item for discussion and action at a future BCC meeting . Collier Area Transit operates in compliance with Federal Transit Administration, (FTA) program requirements and ensures that transit services are made available and equitably distributed, and provides equal AGENDA access and mobility to any person without regard to race, color, or national origin, dis ability, gender or age. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; FTA Circular 4702.1A, "Title VI and Title VI Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. Anyone who required an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or other reasonable accommodations in order to participate in this proceeding, should contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 or 239-252-8380 as soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event. Such reasonable accommodations will be provided at no cost to the individual. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 20, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Public Transit Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building “F”, Suite 501, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Vice Chairman: Mr. Arthur Dobberstein Mr. Richard Duggan Mr. John Jenkins Mr. Dylan Vogel Mr. Harold Weeks ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Michelle Arnold, Director, Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Mr. Omar DeLeon, Senior Planner, Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Mr. Matt Liveringhouse, Transit Manager, Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Page 1 I. Call to Order Vice-Chairman Dobberstein called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Jenkins entered a motion to approve the February 20, 2018 meeting agenda. Mr. Weeks seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes a. January 16, 2018 minutes. Mr. Weeks entered a motion to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2018 meeting minutes. Mr. Duggan seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was carried unanimously. V. Committee Action a. Election of a Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson The yearly election of Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Public Transit Advisory Committee was held, with results as follows: Committee Chairperson *Mr. Dobberstein nominated Mr. John DiMarco for Committee Chairperson, with no other nominations submitted for this position. *Committee vote by show of hands were unanimously in favor of this nomination. *Mr. DiMarco was voted Chairperson, in absentia. Committee Vice Chairperson *Mr. Weeks nominated Mr. Jenkins for Vice Chairperson. *Mr. Jenkins nominated Mr. Dobberstein for Vice Chairperson. *Majority vote by show of hands in favor of the nomination of Mr. Jenkins, 3 out of 4. *Mr. Jenkins was voted Vice Chairperson. VI. Reports and Presentations a. Fare Study – Recommendation Mr. DeLeon reported that four scenarios for modification to the fare structure for Fixed Route and Paratransit had been presented to the public for feedback via public meetings held on January 30, 2018. Following those meetings, survey results were tabulated, with further data analysis performed by Staff and Tindale Oliver consultants. The resultant recommendations were presented to the Advisory Committee for review and input. Scenario 6 was chosen as the preferred scenario, as detailed below: *Fixed route fare increased to $2.00. *Free 90 minute transfer. *Reduction in the cost of the day pass to $3.00. *Elimination of the 7 day pass. Page 2 *Implementation of a 15 day pass at $20, and $10 for reduced fare (50% of the cost of the 30 day pass). *Increase the 30 day pass to $40, and $20 for reduced fare. *Increase Marco Express single fare to $3.00, and reduced fare to $1.50. *Explore the potential for sale of passes at third party vendors (i.e., grocery and convenience stores). *Explore the potential for use of mobile/computer applications to purchase passes/fares. *Implementation of a policy to include college students and active/retired military personnel as eligible for reduced fare with valid identification. *Implement flat rate ADA/TD fares of $4.00, and $1.25 for reduced fair. Mr. Dobberstein recommended that the document also reflect the existing guidelines for free or reduced fare qualification, i.e., children ages 5 and under ride free, with children ages 5 to 17, as well as seniors 65 and older eligible for the reduced fare price. Question: What prompted the initiation of the fare study? Was it at the request of the County Commissioners due to costs associated with Public Transit Division? Answer: The fare study was initiated as a previously identified priority by the Advisory Committee as part of the five year Transit Development Plan. Question: Are these changes anticipated to generate additional income? Will this additional income keep pace with projected operational costs in the near future? Answer: An in depth statistical analysis indicated that scenario 6 would generate the highest revenue of all the scenarios considered. Following the implementation of these changes, the fares would be reviewed again in 4 to 5 years. Question: Was the data of neighboring counties considered when compiling the fare study? Answer: Yes, data from 9 agencies was reviewed for similar services, with Collier County being in line with or generally lower in fares than the other agencies studied. Question: Is ridership anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed fare changes? Answer: Yes, there is an assumption that reduced costs will stimulate ridership. Clarification was requested of the proposed fare changes pertaining to ADA/TD riders. A single ADA/TD flat rate fare of $4.00 ($1.25 for reduced fare, if household income guidelines are met) is proposed. The cost of an ADA/TD route is 5 times higher than the cost of a fixed route, with demand significantly increasing. While implementing the proposed fare change may impact demand, maintaining the current fares for ADA/TD will require greater capital investment. Question: Are the budgets for the fixed route program and the ADA/TD program separate? Answer: The budgets are separate and funds may not be used interchangeably. If one program performs better, it does not compensate for the other. Page 3 Question: How will Collier County compare with other agencies following the proposed increase in ADA/TD fares? Answer: TD programs are handled differently by agency. ADA programs are consistent because regulations mandate that no more then twice the fixed rate amount may be charged for an ADA rider. Following the proposed fare increases, Collier County will be either in line with or slightly higher than the agencies studied. The consultant has been tasked with examining the feasability of offering potential discount passes or some other type of fare media for high useage riders. Question: Would it be possible to monitor the ADA/TD program, with review after one year of implementing the fare increase? Answer: There is such a program presently in place; the Transit Development Service Plan (TDSP), which reviews the program yearly. Further, the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) identifies local transportation service needs and provides information, advice, and direction on the coordination of services. Question: Are ADA/TD riders counseled as to the possibility of using the fixed route bus rather than the paratransit bus? Answer: An assessment/evaluation is performed as part of the application process to determine if the applicant is capable of using the fixed route bus. Accessibility is also taken into account and whether or not there is a safe way for the rider to access the fixed route bus stop, as well as their ability to reach their desired destination after disembarking. Staff is requesting endorsement and/or feedback from the Paratransit Advisory Committee with regard to the proposed fare changes as presented, with approval or recommendations for modification prior to presentation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Feedback will also be solicited from the Technical Advisory Committee and the Local Coordinating Board. Question: What is the timeframe for the Advisory Council to respond prior to presentation to the BOCC? Answer: This issue is being presented to the BOCC in May/June 2018. Mr. Duggan expressed an interest in reviewing available options for ADA frequent riders, such as passes, prior to endorsement of the fare increases as presented. Mr. Jenkins inquired as to whether data was available for review with regard to how the other agencies fund their Paratransit operations and whether there are funding options available, other than raising the ADA fares, taking into account the unique needs of Collier County. Ms. Arnold stated that close monitoring of the program, as well as the potential pass program for frequent users will address the unique needs of these members of the community. Page 4 Mr. DeLeon reiterated that the reduced fare rate would remain available for eligible individuals and would only increase by .25. The study also suggests a potential reduction in service level without the rate increase due to higher operating costs than for the fixed route service. While the committee was generally in favor of the suggested fixed route rate increase, a discussion was had as to whether or not to defer endorsement of the paratransit/TD rate increase until after an opinion has been rendered by the Local Coordinating Board. Ms. Arnold stated that the Local Coordinating Board would be reviewing the fare study at a public meeting on March 7, 2018 in the County Chambers. Following this, the Public Transit Advisory Committee could revisit the paratransit/TD rate increase at the next scheduled meeting on March 20, 2018. The Advisory Committee was in agreement and will table the discussion until the March 20, 2018 meeting. b. Fixed Route Planning Session: Mr. Liveringhouse explained that fixed route planning sessions take place twice yearly, now with the availability of a software program which provides valuable data to assist during these planning sessions. This program tracks the stops made, arrival and departure times, and passengers boarding and alighting. A timestamp is created at each quarter point of the route loop, assessing whether the buses are arriving early or late, allowing for adjustments in timing or timing points to be made as needed. Route performance is also examined to determine which routes are not performing well, with the goal to increase frequency on the high performing routes at peak times; morning and afternoon. Folllowing the most recent planning session, time was diverted from routes 20, 25 and 26, reassigning this time as follows: *Added 1-1/2 more loops on route 11(From the Government Center to US 41 north to Creekside) in the morning and the afternoon. *A full loop has been added to route 12 (Airport Pulling Road north to Creekside). *Time was taken from route 18 to allow a stop on Manatee Road. *Route 24 (Government Center south to Big Cypress Flea Market) contained an excess of time, which allowed for an additional half loop to be made during peak times in the morning and afternoon; the bus will arrive five minutes early in the morning and five minutes later in the afternoon, adjusting for traffic congestion. *Stops are being added on route 28 (Oil Well Road, Ave Maria, Arthrex). Discussions are being had with the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District to coordinate stops in that community. These changes will be implemented April 1, 2018. Question: How are riders made aware of the fixed route changes? Answer: The app and all documents are updated when changes occur, and the drivers update riders as well. A marketing initiative is also underway involving Facebook posts, fliers, and voiceovers on the buses informing of route changes. Page 5 VII. Member Comments Question (Mr. Dobberstein): What is the status of discussions with Lyft and Uber and potentially partnering with Collier Public Transit for ride-sharing. Answer: Mr. DeLeon stated that contact has been initiated with Lyft, with further discussions planned. Mr. Jenkins stated a meeting had been held with Commissioner Fiala to discuss a potential transfer site at Davis Boulevard /Radio Road for Greyhound, Red Coach, and other public transporation companies. The discussion included ways to improve the process following problems experienced with the previous transfer location, and avoiding becoming a “dumping site” for individuals. Mr. Jenkins stated that a meeting is also scheduled with Commissioner Saunders on February 26, 2018 to discuss this issue. Mr. Dobberstein recommended that a member of the PTNE staff attend such meetings as well in order to provide their expertise. Mr Jenkins stated the discussions were being had solely to gauge interest on the part of the Commissioners, with no planning or program details discussed. Ms. Arnold stated that a member of her staff could be made available to attend the meetings, if so desired. VIII. Public Comments There were no public comments made. IX. Next Meeting Date – March 20, 2018 X. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair. Public Transit Advisory Committee ________________________________ John Jenkins, Vice-Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on _________________as presented________ or as amended ___________. Page 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reports and Presentations Item 5a Collier Area Transit's Pare Study Objective: To give an update on the Fare Study Considerations: Preliminary scenarios for modifications to the fare structure for Fixed Route and Paratransit were brought before the PTAC on January 16, 2018. The.committee reviewed the seven (7) scenarios presented and recommended that four (4) of the seven be presented to the public to obtain their feedback. The selected scenarios were made public to the riders and the communities on January 30e', 2018 through Public Meetings. Staff and consultants tabulated the survey results and conducted further analysis and brought recommendation to the committee for consideration at the February 20"', 2018 meeting. The following recommendations were presented at that time: • Increase the Fixed Route fare by $0,50, provide a free 90 -minute transfer, and reduce the day pass to $3 as part of a consolidated package to optimize use of the day pass while reducing possible ridership reduction associated with increasing the one-way fare. • Eliminate the existing 7 -day pass and replace with al 5 -day pass at 50% of the cost of (lie 30 -day pass. The 15 -day pass would be priced at $20 ($10 for reduced fare) based on increasing the cost of the 30 -day pass to $40 as the next bullet describes, • Increase the cost of the 30 -day pass from $35 to $40 ($20 for reduced fare). • Increase the cost of the Marco Express single fare from $2.50 to $3 ($1.50 for reduced fare) to bring it more in line with the cost of the Marco Express monthly pass. • Explore the potential for sale of passes at third party vendors (such as grocery and convenience stores). This had considerable support by the public. • Explore the potential to use a phone/computer app to purchase passes/fares. This concept was also desired by the public. • Implement a policy to include college-age students and active/retired military personnel as eligible for reduced .fare with valid ID, • Provide a single ADA/TD fare of $4 ($1.25 for reduced fare), consistent with the increase to the one-way fixed -route fare to $2.00 ($1.00 for reduced fare). The committee was in agreement with the proposed changes to the Fixed Route service but had a concern regarding the increase of rates for paratransif services and impact it will have on the riders. However, understanding operating costs and the constrains that may result if an increase does not occur, the committee decided to wait to make an endorsement until the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) has an opportunity to comment and make an endorsement to the fare study. In addition to the recommendations noted above, the following were also discussed with the Committee: • Eliminate the cost of the smartcard in conjunction with the fare increase for the -30 -day pass. • Combine the cost of the sradileard and the fill or reduced 30 -day pass price into one fate when a customer. needs to purchase or replace a smart card, ($42 full fare or $22 reduced fate) • Update the definition of "household income" and required documentation as recommended in the "Definition of Household for Low Income Fate Qualification" • Further incentivize the Business Pass Program by maintainingthe currently corporate 30 - day pass rate of $29.75 if the 30 -day pass fare is increased to $40. • Implement a promotional "Try Transit" day where fixed -route fares are waived on a designated, day to encourage irifiequent or new riders to try CAT's service. The Consultants reevaluated the scenarios for the paratr•ansit system and Paine up with several alternatives that were presented to the Local Coordinating Board. After much discussion the LCR agreed to recommend the following fare modifications for the paratransit system: • Maintain the existing ADA fare structure and. consolidate the TD fare structure from five to three income -based categories to include: o $1 for riders at or below the poverty level o $3 for riders 101-150% of the poverty level o $4 for riders with income 151% or higher above the poverty. • CAT consider implementing a fare increase of up to $1 for all ADA slidTDriders within the next two years. Collier Area transit wilt continue to monitor the operating cost and may implement the increase with sufficient notice to maintain the current level of service. Staff is at this tinge bringing the Fare Study back to the Committee for your endorsement in order to take it to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and approval. Recommendation; To endorse the Fare Study and provide comments. Attachments: Fare Analysis Surmnary I Prepared by: Date: 7j to ar• De Leori; eriior Plarnner i Approved by: (�� Michelle Arnold, Director Tindale ,4OI' Yer GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. ph""'ng design q,.. . To: Collier County Local Coordinating Board (LCB) Members CC: Michelle Arnold. Omar Deleon, Matthew Liveringhouse, CAT; Brandy Otero, Collier MPO From: Elisabeth Schuck and Randy Farwell, Tindale Oliver RE: Summary of Ridership and Revenue Impacts for Proposed Fare Changes Date: February 23, 2018 Tindale Oliver is conducting a fare study for Collier County addressing potential fare changes for both fixed -route and paratransit services. This memo presents a review of fare concepts, ridership and revenue impacts for both fixed -route and paratransit fare change scenarios, key findings from the public outreach activities, and final fare and policy recommendations for consideration by the LCB at its March 7`h meeting. The findings of our analyses and recommendations are presented below. Fixed route services are presented first, followed by paratransit. FIXED -ROUTE FARE CHANGE SCENARIOS Based on analyses completed during early stages of the fare study and discussions with CAT staff, seven fixed -route fare change scenarios were prepared, along with the estimated potential ridership and revenue impacts of each. Each scenario was designed to measure potential changes in ridership and revenue with the overall objective of defining a scenario that increases ridership, increases revenue, and does not disproportionately adversely impact low-income riders. The seven scenarios initially developed are described as follows: Scenario 1 1.A) Eliminate transfers; no change to base fare price 1.13) Decrease the cost of a day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50 1.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 day pass at 50% of 30 day pass price Scenario 2 (same as Scenario 1 but no change to cost of day pass) 2.A) Eliminate transfers; no change to base fare price 2.13) No change to the cost of a day pass 2.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 -day pass at 50% of 30 -day pass price Scenario (same as Scenario 2 but increase base fare and Marco Express fares) 3.A) Eliminate transfers 3.6) No change to the cost of a day pass 3.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 -day pass at 50% of 30 -day pass price 3.D) Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1 3.E) Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1.50 TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE wwwAindaleoliver.com Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. 1 Suite400 i Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Faa(813)226-2106 Tndale V <Oliver ph..... ,.: .,yin .nrpneenny Scenario 4 (same as Scenario 1 but reduce cost of day pass) 4.A) Eliminate transfers GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. page 2 43) Decrease the cost of a day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50 4.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 -day pass at 50% of 30 -day pass price 4.D) Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1 4.E) Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced Marco Express base fare to $1.50 Scenario 5 (same as Scenario 4 but increase cost of the 30 -day pass) 5.A) Eliminate transfers 5.6) Decrease the cost of a day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50 5.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 -day pass at 50% of 30 -day pass price 5.D) Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1 5.E) Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1,50 5.F) Increase 30 -day pass fare to $40/reduced 30 -day pass to $20 Scenario 6 (same as Scenario 5 but allows for a free 90 -minute transfer) 6.A) Free 90 -minute transfer to a different route 6.13) Decrease the cost of a day pass from $4 to $3/reduced day pass from $2 to $1.50 6.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 -day pass at 50% of 30 -day pass price 6.D) Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1 6.E) Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1.50 6.F) Increase 30 -day pass fare to $40/reduced 30 -day pass to $20 Scenario 7 (same as Scenario 6 but no increase to cost of the day pass) 7.A) Free 90 -minute transfer to a different route 7.B) No change to the cost of a day pass 7.C) Eliminate 7 -day pass and replace with 15 -day pass at 50% of 30 -day pass price 7.D) Increase base fare to $2/reduced base fare to $1 7.E) Increase Marco Express base fare to $3/reduced ME base fare to $1.50 7.F) Increase 30 -day pass fare to $40/reduced 30 -day pass to $20 Table 1 presents the seven fare change scenarios tested and compares these to the existing fare structure. Proposed changes to fares tested under each scenario shown in bold text. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suite400 I Tampa, FL 33602 1 (813) 224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 www.tindaleoliveccom C C N 0 0 0 0 v o o¢¢ o 0 0 0$ N o 0 Z Z o o c o o vi N iIY d y N LL� N N N V' N N YI irii Mit LL LL ¢ C C N o0oo�`0NQ¢0000a„oo ,v v~i d N LL 4 Z Z N c-; C N ti m W W v N N V! LF N N LL LL ¢ N N O O QQ h LL O N¢ Q O O O O N O O N N Z Z ryj N Z Z N .Oi p N M .4 O M N N Q c 1I! N N i? N N Ll v v 0 0¢¢ W O ul 6 0 0 0C� O 0 10�N 0 0 N N Z Z M N Z z 0-6 N M ti M N O m YF N ¢ C H H N N +R V1 YI N N N N � v 0 0¢¢ N W 0 0 0 Q O OC� O O N O O N N Z Z N Z Z O Mri M N O N v v ti Q¢ h LL o o¢¢ O O L9 N N O O o Z ZN Z Z H N ¢ +Nir N N ¢ Q vl LL O1011 Q Q O p O N 0 0 1�i� a0i> Z Z M4 Z Z Ol M Q C N N V! 1? N a � v O In In tf1 N LL O O O O Q¢ O 0 0 0 0 ul r r M O O t0 � M N d N LL LL N � � O � c O LL O N N N d O d LL O IU a a n W O W w N LL T T V1 M o N o c O X Ip 0 vi O N to N Ip � LL a v a -a u LL u T u T u 0 u o u T h i t T hip 1p P u Tindale <Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. planning design eTwuw' nnq During the fare study, a fare elasticity of -0.4 was calculated. This means that for every $0.10 of fare increase, the ridership is anticipated to initially decrease by 4%. Over time it has been observed that the initial decrease in ridership experienced following a fare increase tends to subsequently trend upward overtime as customers adjust to price changes. While the elasticity calculates the potential ridership loss or increase from a fare change, it does not account for the potential shift in riders to another fare category. To account for both possibilities, a range in potential ridership and revenue impacts was calculated for each scenario listed above. In an effort to recognize potential changes in rider behavior resulting from changes to fares, Tindale Oliver examined a range (low to high) of likely behavioral impacts. The low end of the range assumes that the full impact of measured elasticity is applied to the ridership and those riders will initially leave the system, resulting in greater initial impacts to annual ridership and revenue. The high end of the range assumes that eitherthe existing ridership will be maintained or only a portion of the riders will leave the system due to elasticity impacts. Depending on the scenario/fare category, and the rest of the riders impacted will shift to other fare categories based on the existing/proposed fare changes. The high-end assumptions produce less impacts to ridership and therefore higher annual revenue estimates. The actual ridership and revenue impacts are likely somewhere in the middle of the ranges presented, as assumptions must be made regarding ridership behavior for each scenario. Important in our assumptions is the recognition that mobility is largely an essential commodity for most riders, especially those on the low end of the income spectrum. Thus, by providing a range of scenarios that attempt to counter increased costs in certain fare categories with reduced costs in alternative fare categories, we are attempting to provide attractive and reasonable options for riders other than to simply stop using the CAT services. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the ridership and revenue impacts for the low-end range (elasticity fully applied) and the high-end range of ridership and revenue estimates (elasticity partially applied), respectively. It should be noted that the ridership and revenue figures in the tables below only represent the fare types affected by each scenario and do not reflect system -wide ridership and revenue figures. As shown below, Scenarios 1 and 2 are anticipated to produce less revenue than the base year (FY 2016), primarily due to minimal proposed changes to the fare structure. Scenarios 2, 4, and 5, which propose to eliminate transfers, are projected to generate additional revenue ranging from approximately $41,000-$166,000 in Scenario 3, $21,000-$141,000 in Scenario 4, and $37,500-$179,000 in Scenario 5. The higher revenue generated in Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 is primarily influenced by the increase in the base fare, which carries the highest percentage of riders (44% of ridership, including full and reduced fare customers in FY 16). Scenarios 6 and 7, which propose providing a free 90 -minute transfer to another route along with other fare changes, generate the highest revenue of all the scenarios. In FY 16 approximately $25,000 was generated by full and reduced transfer fares. If the current fare structure remains unchanged and a 90 -minute free transfer is allowed, then it is assumed the $25,000 annual transfer revenue would disappear as most (if not all) riders make a transfer to another route within a 90 -minute window. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE wwwAindaleoliver.com Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 Tindale ):4Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 5 If a free 90 -minute transfer is offered along with other fare changes, it is estimated that more revenue will be generated, as the free transfer encourages riders to remain in the highest cost-pertrip base fare category rather than shifting to another fare options. Under Scenarios 6 and 7, while the transfer revenue disappears more riders remain in the base fare category, which has a higher average cost per trip than a day pass. This generates more revenue than if those riders shift to a pass option. Therefore, it is estimated that Scenario 6 could generate up to an additional 53,700 annual trips and $68,000- $209,000 annually in revenue over the base year (or $23,000-$31,000 more than Scenario 5). Scenario 7 could generate up to an addition a 148,700 annual trips and $79,000-$231,000 annually over the base year (or $35,000-$54,000 more than Scenario 5, as the cost of a day pass is not reduced). Table 2: Low -End Range of Fixed -Route Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed -Route Fare Change Scenarios 1-7 (Elasticity Fully Applied Resulting in Ridership Loss) Scenario 1 891,606 $873,694 869,679 (21,927) $816,874 ($56,820) Scenario 2 891,606 $873,694 864,755 (26,851) $846,616 ($27,078) Scenario 3 911,114 $912,120 820,470 (90,644) $953,077 $40,957 Scenario 4 911,114 $912,120 830,880 (80,234) $933,170 $21,050 Scenario 5 911,114 $912,120 816,194 (94,920) $956,624 $44,504 Scenario 6 911,114 $912,120 845,489 (65,625) $980,135 $68,015 Scenario 7 911,1141 $912,120 840,109 (71,005)1 $991,510 1 $79,390 Table 3: High -End Range of Ridership and Revenue Estimates for Fixed -Route Fare Change Scenarios 1-7 (Elasticity Applied with Estimate of Likely Shift of Riders to More Favorable Fare Options) Scenario 1 891,606 $873,694 872,052 (19,554) $818,804 ($54,890) Scenario 2 891,606 $873,694 868,513 (23,093) $850,979 ($22,715) Scenario 3 911,114 $912,120 914,652 3,538 $1,078,138 $166,018 Scenario 4 911,114 $912,120 925,853 14,739 $1,052,875 $140,754 Scenario 5 911,114 $912,120 932,816 21,702 $1,089,134 $177,013 Scenario 6 911,114 $912,120 964,792 53,678 $1,120,682 $208,562 Scenario 7 911,1141 $912,120 959,842 48,728 $1,142,987 $230,867 l'P H I ^ 1;11 1 I;,:i ^11 I I i rd ..., I i I1'I I '. I )tiYI.I-. ,n„w lu id,, loolivn'.c<;ui leadquaiteis1000N.Ashley Dr. ; Suite400 Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 Tindale 4<OII Ye� GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page G planning I design I eugmeenng PARATRANSIT SYSTEM (ADA AND TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SERVICES) As the ADA fare, by law, cannot exceed twice the base fixed -route fare, there are limited options for changing this fare structure. In the fixed -route scenarios previously presented, the base fixed -route fare is proposed to increase from $1.50 to $2.00 in Scenarios 3, 4, and 5. This would allow for an increase from the current ADA fare of $3.00 to a maximum new fare of $4.00. Collier County also offers a reduced ADA fare of $1,00 for households whose income is below poverty level. Since TD fares are not tied to the base fixed -route fare, there is more flexibility in terms of changing the TD fares; however, it is acknowledged that potential financial impacts to both ADA and TD riders must be carefully considered as part of any recommendation. Fare elasticity forADA and Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) services is more difficult to apply as travel behavior is different than for fixed -route riders and eligibility requirements must be met to use the service. The ridership and revenue impacts for the paratransit scenarios assume that the elasticity is applied in the case of a fare increase; however, in instances of a fare decrease, it is assumed that a person's travel behavior does not necessarily change and the number of trips does not increase, nor does the ridership increase due to a lower fare offered as eligibility requirements stay the same. For the paratransit services, seven scenarios were developed and the ridership and revenue impacts of each assessed. These scenarios include: • Scenario 8: Increase ADA fare from $3 to $4 (assuming the fixed -route fare is increased to $2), but maintain the $1 fare for qualified low-income individuals. • Scenario 9: Increase ADA fare from $3 to $4 as in Scenario 8, but also increase the $1 fare to $1.25 for qualified low-income individuals. • Scenario 10: Increase TD fares for all income -based fare categories by $0.50. • Scenario 11: Increase TD fares for all income -based fare categories by $1.00. • Scenario 12: Provide a single ADA and TD fare based on income, where individuals at or below the poverty level (currently paying $1 for either ADA orTD services) will continue to pay $1 and all others will pay $3. • Scenario 13: Provide a single ADA and TD fare based on income where individuals at or below the poverty level (currently paying $1 for either ADA orTD services) will continue to pay $1 and all others will pay $4. • Scenario 14: Maintain the existing ADA fare structure and consolidate the TD fare structure into three income -based categories with fares of $1, $3, or $4, resulting in no fare increase for any paratransit rider. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suite 400 I Tampa, FL 33602 1 (813) 224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 www.d nd aleolim.com Tindale Oliver Scenario 8 ($4 Full and $1 Reduced ADA fare) GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 7 Under this scenario, ridership and revenue impacts are calculated assuming the regular ADA fare will increase to $4 if the base fixed -route fare increases to $2, but the $1 fare for qualifying low-income will not change. The low-end of the range assumes that elasticity is fully applied and that 100x/0 of the riders "lost" from elasticity (7,758) due to the increase in fare will no longer use the ADA system. The high-end of the range assumes the existing ridership will be maintained since there is no other fare category for riders to shift into, as there is in the fixed -route system. Table 4 presents ridership and revenue impacts resulting from this fare change scenario. If elasticity is applied and the ridership decreases as estimated, there is projected to be 7,758 fewer ADA trips and an additional $27,000 generated annually through the fare increase; however, fewer trips being provided will also likely lower CAT's overall operating costs. Therefore, it is estimated that the net operating cost reduction, less estimated state revenue for non -sponsored paratransit trips that would also decrease if these trips are no longer provided, is $235,100. While this provides a net revenue change of $262,100, it is recognized that up to 7,758 trips may not be made annually under this scenario, greatly impacting these riders. If ridership is maintained, the additional annual revenue generated is estimated to increase by $58,000. Table 4: Scenario 8— Ridership and Revenue Estimates for$4 Regular j$1 Low Income ADA Fare ElosticityApplied to Ridership 75,961 1 $192,470 1 68,203 (T,758)1 $219,477 1 $27,007 Operating Cost Reduction due to Ridership Decrease 5235110 Net Revenue Impact if Elasticity Applied $262,117 Maintain Existing Ridership 75,961 $192,470 75,961 0 $250,507 $58,037 Notes: No variance between the estimated revenue and actual revenue collected for FV 2016 was observed, so no adjustment to the estimated revenue is made. Operating cost reduction due to ridership decrease based on the FV 16 state revenue and cost per trip to be consistent with the base year ridership. Scenario 9 ($4 Full and $1.25 Reduced ADA fare) This scenario includes the same assumptions as made under the previous scenario except it is assumed the regular ADA fare will increase to $4 and the low-income qualifying ADA fare increase to $1.25. While a low-income fare of $1.33 would equate to the same percentage increase as the regular ADA fare (33%), a fare of $1.25 is assumed for ease of fare collection. As shown in Table 5, if elasticity is applied, the effect of increasing the fare from $1.00 to $1.25 results in the assumption that 1,778 more riders will be lost if elasticity is applied, or a total of 9,536 riders. While the $0.25 fare increase will generate some new revenue (estimated to be $2,200), the net effect is an additional $289,000 in operating cost reduction, resulting in a net revenue impact of $318,200 annually. If elasticity is not applied, it is assumed increasing the fare by $0.25 will generate $4,400 annually. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE www.tindaleolivmcom Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suile400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)2248862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 Tindale r<Oliver planning I design 1 engineerl»q GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 8 Table 5: Scenario 9—Ridership and Revenue Estimates for $4 Regular /$1.25 Low Income ADA Fare Elasticity Applied to Ridership 1 75,9611 $192,470 1 66,425 (9,536) $221,699 1 $29,229 Operating Cost Reduction due to Ridership Decrease Net Revenue Impact if Elasticity Applied $318,222 Maintain Existing Ridership 75,961 $192,470 75,961 0 $254,952 $62,482 Notes: No variance between the estimated revenue and actual revenue collected forFy2016 was observed, so no adjustment to the estimated revenue is made. Operating cost reduction due to ridership decrease based on the FV 16state revenue and costper trip to be consistent with the base year ridership. Scenario 10 ($0.50 Increase to all TD Fare Categories) Similar to the ADA fare, ridership and revenue impacts for the TD fares were estimated for Scenarios 10 and 11. Scenario 10 assumes that the five income categories used for the purpose of determining the TD fare will be retained and the existing fare for each will increase by $0.50. It is recognize that increasing the TD fare the same amount among all five fare categories results in a higher change in overall fare for riders at or below the poverty level as they are paying the lowest fare; however, the range in current fares collected ($1 to $7) provides a challenge in creating a more equitable distribution unless the amount of the proposed increase were considerably higher. The low-end of the range assumes that elasticity is fully applied and that 100x/0 of the riders "lost' from elasticity due to the increase in fare will no longer use the TD system. The high-end of the range assumes the existing ridership will be maintained as the fare a TD user pays is strictly based on their household income and thus the rider cannot choose another TD fare category. Table 6 presents ridership and revenue impacts if increasing the TD fare across all income categories by $0.50. If elasticity is applied and the ridership decreases as estimated (by -3,010), there is projected to be an additional $5,200 generated annually. Similar to two previous scenarios concerning the ADA fare, the estimated decrease in operating costs associated with the potential TD ridership decrease, net of any state revenue no longer received due to the decrease in trips, is included in this table. Accounting for the net operating cost reduction due to the ridership decrease, a net revenue impact of $96,500 is calculated. If ridership is maintained, the additional annual revenue generated is estimated to increase by $11,000. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters1000N.Ashley Dc 1 Suite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 rax(813)226-2106 www.tinda leo liver.com Tndale � <Oliver planning I design o, , GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 9 Table 6: Scenario 10 -Ridership and Revenue Estimates for $0.50 TO Fare Increase Elasticity Applied to Ridership Existing/ Proposed ='Difference Bas�: FY .. .�.. .�. 2�WrEstimat-ed .. .ven uL�..- Difference ,Revenue Ridership and Revenue At or Under Poverty Level $1/$1.50 11,361 $10,130 9,089 (2,272) $12,156 $2,026 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3/$3.50 7,308 $19,549 6,821 (487) $21,286 $1,738 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$4.50 2,962 $10,564 2,814 (148) $11,291 $726 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5/$5.50 1,294 $5,769 1,242 (52) $6,092 $323 +337% of Poverty Level $7/$7.50 1,761 $10,992 1,711 (50) $11,440 $449 Subtotal 24,686 $57,004 21,676 (3,010) $62,266 $5,262 Operating Cost Reduction due to Ridership Decrease .£41,211 Net Revenue Impact if Elasticity Applied $96,473 Maintain Existing Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$1.50 11,361 $10,130 11,361 0 $15,195 $5,065 101% to 1500k of Poverty Level $3/$3.50 7,308 $19,549 7,308 0 $22,807 $3,258 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$4.50 2,962 $10,564 2,962 0 $11,885 $1,321 226%to 337%of Poverty Level $5/$5.50 1,294 $5,769 1,294 0 $6,346 $577 +337%of Poverty Level $7/$7.50 1,761 $10,992 1,761 0 $11,777 $785 Total- with Elasticity Applied 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $68,010 $11,006 Notes: Variance between estimated revenue and actual revenue collected forFV2016 (89%) applied to estimated revenue under the scenario to be conservative. Operating cost reduction due to ridership decrease based on the FV 16 state revenue and cast per trip to be consistent with the base year ridership. Scenario 11 ($1 Increase to all TD Fare Categories) This scenario includes the same assumptions as made under the previous scenario except that a fare increase of $1 is applied across all TD fare categories. Table 7 shows that, if elasticity is applied and the ridership decreases as estimated (by -6,000), $7,800 more is projected to be generated annually. Similar to the previous scenario, an assumption is made thatthere will a decrease in operating costs associated with the ridership decrease, net of any state revenue no longer received due to the decrease in trips. Accounting for the net operating cost reduction due to the ridership decrease, a net revenue impact of $190,300 is calculated. If ridership is maintained, the additional annual revenue generated is estimated to increase by $22,000. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suite 400 I Tampa, FL33602. 1 (813) 224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 www.tiiidalcoliver.com Tndale � <Oliver plannm4 I design _. +q GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 10 Table 7: Scenario 11 -Ridership and Revenue Estimates for $1.00 Increase to TO Fare Elasticity Applied to Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$2 11,361 $10,130 6,817 (4,544) $12,156 $2,026 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3/$4 7,308 $19,549 6,334 (974) $22,590 $3,041 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$5 2,962 $10,564 2,666 (296) $11,885 $1,321 226%n to 337% of Poverty Level $5/$6 1,294 $5,769 1,190 (104) $6,369 $600 +337% of Poverty Level $7/$8 1,761 $10,992 1,660 (101) $11,844 $852 Subtotal 24,686 $57,004 18,667 (6,019) $64,844 $7,840 Operating Cost Reduction due to Ridership Decrease 5182 423 Net Revenue Impact if Elasticity Applied $190,263 Maintain Existing Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$2 11,361 $10,130 11,361 0 $20,260 $10,130 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3/$4 7,308 $19,549 7,308 0 $26,065 $6,516 151% to 225%u of Poverty Level $4/$5 2,962 $10,564 2,962 0 $13,206 $2,641 226% to 337%v of Poverty Level $5/$6 1,294 $5,769 1,294 0 $6,923 $1,154 +337%n of Poverty Level $7/$8 1,761 $10,992 1,761 0 $12,562 $1,570 Total- with ElasticityApplied 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $79,016 $22,012 Notes: Variance between estimated revenue and actual revenue collected for FY2016 (89%) applied to estimated revenue under the scenario to be conservative. Operating cost reduction due to ridership decrease based on the FY 16 state revenue and costper trip to be consistent with the base year ridership. Scenario 12 (Single Fare of $3 Full and $1 Reduced for TD and ADA Services) CAT's current paratransit fare structure includes five TD fares and two ADA fares, depending on the rider's annual household income. To simplify the paratransit fare structure, a single fare charged for either service is explored, replacing the income -based TD fare scale. Under this scenario, it is assumed that a TD/ADA fare of $3 is implemented, which is equivalent to the current ADA fare. However, riders at or below the poverty level will pay $1, equivalent to the reduced ADA fare and lowest TD fare currently offered. Table 8 presents the ridership and revenue impacts assuming a flat ADA/TD fare of $3 (or $1 for qualified low-income individuals). Since the TD program is qualification -based program, no assumption is made that a reduced fare for the higher income categories (currently paying $4 or more) will increase ridership. Based on these estimates, there is projected to be a decrease of $11,200 annually due to income loss from TD riders that would pay a lower fare than they currently pay. There are not anticipated to be any ADA ridership or revenue impacts as no changes to the current ADA fare are assumed in this scenario. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE www.tindaleoliver.com Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suite 400 I Tampa, FL 33602 1 (813) 2248862 1 Fax(823)226-2106 Tindale )..Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 11. Table 8: Scenario 12—Ridership and Revenue Estimates for $3 Full/$I Reduced ADA/TD Fare Maintain Existing Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$1 11,361 $10,130 11,361 0 $10,130 $0 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3/$3 7,308 $19,549 7,308 0 $19,549 $0 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$3 2,962 $10,564 2,962 0 $7,923 ($2,641) 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5/$3 1,294 $5,769 1,294 0 $3,461 ($2,308) +337% of Poverty Level $7/$3 1,761 $10,992 1,761 0 $4,711 ($6,281) Total - with ElasticityApplied 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $45,774 ($11,230) Notes: Variance between estimated revenue and actual revenue collected forFy1016 (89%) applied to estimated revenue under the scenario to be conservative. Operating cost reduction due to ridership decrease based on the FV 16state revenue and costper trip to be consistent with the base yearridership. Scenario 13 (Single Fare of $4 Full and Sl Reduced for TD and ADA Services) This scenario is similar to the previous scenario in that it provides for a single ADA and TD fare, but the fare for riders who currently pay $3 is proposed to increase to $4, while the $1 fare for qualified low- income individuals remains as is. The ridership and revenue impacts of this scenarios are presented in Table 9. Similar to the previous scenario, no assumption is made that a reduced fare for the higher income categories (currently paying $5 or more) will increase ridership. However, elasticity is applied in the instances where the fare increases as there could be an associated potential ridership decrease. Under these assumptions, elasticity is applied only for riders currently paying $3, which would increase to $4 under this scenario. Based on these estimates, if elasticity is applied to fare categories where riders currently pay a lower fare and the ridership decreases as estimated (by -974), there is projected to be a $2,800 annual loss. However, because this scenario also includes a $1 increase for ADA riders currently paying $3, the net revenue impact attributed to the $4 ADA fare increase under Scenario 8 is also included (in addition to the estimated net operating impacts for the TO ridership loss). This results in a net revenue impact of $288,825. If ridership is maintained, the revenue generated is estimated to be minimal at $650 per year. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE www.tindaleoliver.com Headquarters 1000N.Ashley Dr. 1 Suite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 Tindale <Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 12 plannnn I design Table 9: Scenario 13 -Ridership and Revenue Estimates for $4 Full/$1 Reduced ADA/TD Fare Elasticity Applied to Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$1 11,361 $10,130 11,361 0 $10,130 $0 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3/$4 7,308 $19,549 6,334 (974) $22,590 $3,041 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$4 2,962 $10,564 2,962 0 $10,564 $0 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5/$4 1,294 $5,769 1,294 0 $4,615 ($1,154) +337% of Poverty Level $7/$4 1,761 $10,992 1,761 0 $6,281 ($4,711) Total- with ElasticityApplied 24,686 $57,004 23,712 (974) $54,180 ($2,824) Operating Cost Reduction due to Ridership Decrease (ADA +TD) $291,648 Net Revenue Impact if Elasticity Applied $288,825 Maintain Existing Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$1 11,361 $10,130 11,361 0 $10,130 $0 101% to 150% of Poverty Level $3/$4 7,308 $19,549 7,308 0 $26,065 $6,516 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$4 2,962 $10,564 2,962 0 $10,564 $0 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5/$4 1,294 $5,769 1,294 0 $4,615 ($1,154) +337% of Poverty Level $7/$4 1,761 $10,992 1,761 0 $6,281 ($4,711) Total- with ElasticityApplied 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $57,656 $652 Notes: For TD service, variance between estimated revenue and actual revenue collected for FY2016 (89%) applied to estimated revenue under the scenario to be conservative. As noted in previous tables, no variance forADA service is estimated. Operating cost reduction accounting forboth ADA and TD service is due to ridership decrease based on the FY16 state revenue and cost per trip to be consistent with the base year ridership. Scenario 14 (Maintain Existing ADA Fare and Consolidate TD Fare Structure) Under the previous scenario, ADA riders currently paying $3 who do not qualify for the reduced $1 fare and TD riders with income between 101-150x/0 of the poverty level would experience a fare increase. While CAT does have the option to redefine the income levels qualifying riders for the lowest fare, it would also experience higher revenue loss, potentially affecting service. To minimize the disproportional impact to these riders and adverse revenue impacts, this scenario assumes the existing ADA fare structure is maintained and the TO fare structure is consolidated from five to three income -based categories: • $1 for riders at or below the poverty level -no change proposed based on current fare structure. • $3 for riders 101-150% of the poverty level -no change proposed based on current fare structure. • $4 for riders with income 151% or higher above the poverty. This only affects riders at 226% or more of the poverty level who currently pay $5 of $7, depending on their household income. This scenario would reduce the fare for these riders by $1 or $3, respectively. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Suite400 I Tampa,FL.33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 www: t inch teoliver.coni Tindale <Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 13 planning � design engmeenng The ridership and revenue impacts of this scenarios are presented in Table 10 and estimate an annual revenue reduction of $5,800 from riders currently paying fares of $5 or $7, but would now pay $4 under this scenario. Tz Maintain Existing Ridership At or Under Poverty Level $1/$1 11,361 $10,130 11,361 0 $10,130 $0 101% to 150%. of Poverty Level $3/$3 7,308 $19,549 7,308 0 $19,549 $0 151% to 225% of Poverty Level $4/$4 2,962 $10,564 2,962 0 $10,564 $0 226% to 337% of Poverty Level $5/$4 1,294 $5,769 1,294 0 $4,615 ($1,154) +337% of Poverty Level $7/$4 1,761 $10,992 1,761 0 $6,281 ($4,711) Total- with ElasticityApplied 24,686 $57,004 24,686 0 $51,140 ($5,864) Notes: Variance between estimated revenue and actual revenue collected for FY2016 (89%) applied to estimated revenue under the scenario to be conservative. Fare Study Public Outreach Activities Rider Intercept Surveys CAT staff performed an intercept survey of riders at the CAT Transfer Center on January 18-19, 2018. A total of 80 people took the survey. Highlights of the survey findings are noted below. • If base fare increases from $1.50 to $2, most fixed -route respondents stated they would switch to either a day pass or the new 15 -day pass. • If transfers are eliminated, respondents are split between switching to a day pass and staying with the base fare. • If the 30 -day pass increases from $35 to $40, riders seem split between continuing using the same fare versus switching to a 15 -day pass. There were also a couple of respondents that indicated a $5 increase on the 30 -day pass is too high. • Of the respondents that currently use the reduced fixed -route base fare, two-thirds would keep using that fare and the remaining one-third would switch to the reduced day pass if the price is lowered to $1.50. • Of the respondents that use the reduced 30 -day pass, nearly all would keep using it if the price increases given how often they ride. • Of the paratransit riders that responded, most would continue to use the service if the fare is increased from the current $3 fare because they have no other choice, but feel this would be a financial hardship and may try to find financial assistance. • Of those that responded to the demographic questions: o Most use the bus for life sustaining trips or it is their primary mode of transportation. o There is a fairly even distribution of riders 25-65 years and riders age 65+. o Approximately 80%of respondents have an annual household income of less than $25,000. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters1000 N. Ashley Dr. 1 Suite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 wwwAindaleoliver.com Tindale <Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 14 planning I design """'ennq Based on the above survey results and discussions with staff, the County's Public Transit Advisory Committee recommended the following four scenarios be presented at the public workshops: Scenarios 1, 4, 5, and 6. These scenarios were renamed Scenarios A, B, C, and D, respectively. Public Workshops Two public workshops were held on January 30, 2018, to solicit feedback from the public on potential fare changes for CAT's fixed -route and paratransit services. The first was held at the CAT Transfer Center in Naples from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and the second at CareerSource Southwest Florida in Immokalee from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The workshops were open -house style with three stations. The first station included a narrated presentation running a continuous loop providing information about CAT's current fare structure, historic ridership and revenue trends, and the four proposed fare scenarios. Following the presentation, participants were asked to move to a second station and complete an exercise sheet seeking information about their use of CAT's fixed -route and paratransit services and the different fare scenarios. The third station provide an opportunity to discuss the fare study with and ask questions of CAT and Tindale Oliver staff. A total of 54 people completed the exercise sheet to provide feedback for use in developing fare study recommendations. Highlights of the public workshop feedback include: • Over 40% of all respondents stated that a fare rounded to a whole dollar is most convenient. • Nearly 60% of all respondents stated that the ability to buy a smart card at a third -party location (like a convenience or grocery store) would be convenient. Just over 40% stated that being able to pay the fare using their smartphone or tablet would also be convenient. • Atotal of 77% of all respondents stated that they would support a fare increase if the revenue was used to improve service frequency/availability or provide better access to other locations. The remaining 23% of respondents stated they do not support a fare increase. Additional service to Vanderbilt Beach, better locations of stops, and later/more frequent service were specific comments received. • Of respondents that use the ADA service, 50% said they would support a fare increase of $0.50 while 11% would support an increase of $0.25, and 17% would support an increase of $1.00. The remaining 22% stated they did not support an ADA fare increase. • Of respondents that use the TD service, 56% said theywould support a fare increase of $0.25 while 17% would support an increase of $0,50. Respondents were able to state different amounts that they would support other than the options supplied and one person stated they would support an increase of $0.05. The remaining 33% stated they did not support a TD fareincrease. • Of the respondents that use the fixed -route system, 60% indicated they would support paying a slightly higher one-way fare if it includes a free transfer. • Of the respondents that use the fixed -route system, 31% indicated that a fare of $2 would be too expensive while 40% indicated a fare of $2.50 would be too expensive. The remaining 29% indicated that the current fare of $1.50 is already too expensive. i /e1 u Il:�i] [7 � P I S•= 9d\ FiY•1§t tt [•7 �� � 1p H � 77e\ [�7i111 Y f u� Ci] tT�9 �il Y I � 3 Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. I Sui1e400 I Tampa,1`1_33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 w w w. t i n d a l eo I i ve r. c o n i Tindale Dliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 15 planning neoign engnecnng When asked about fare passes, 47x/0 of fixed -route riders indicated that they do not ride the bus enough to make the cost of a pass worthwhile. Of the remaining responses, 41% stated that one of the pass options was too expensive (20% for the 30 -day pass, 12% for the day pass, and 9% for the 7 day pass). The remaining 12% of respondents indicated they are either unable to get to a location to buy a pass or it is too confusing for them to buy a pass on the bus. When asked which three fare pass options CAT should institute first, the following were selected: o 1"(29% of respondents): Reduce the day -pass from $4.00 to $3.00 as a stand-alone change. 0 2nd (24% of respondents): Increase the base fare from $1.50 to $2.00 and reduce the day -pass from $4.00 to $3.00. 0 31 (18% of respondents): Change the 7 -day pass from $15.00 to a 15 -day pass at 50% of the 30 -day pass price. 0 4'h (16% of respondents): Eliminate transfers and reduce the unlimited day -pass from $4.00 to $3.00. 0 5`h (13% of respondents): Increase the base fare to $2.00 and make transfers free for 90 minutes. • Other comments received from the public workshop include: o Provide a two-hour fare with transfer. o Provide day, 7 -day, and 30 -day pass options for service between Lee and Collier counties. o Have a frequency user program or other ways of purchasing a 30 -day pass. o Extend summer season student paw pass for athletes/college students during sports. o Allow for payment options forthe 30 -day pass. o Provide reduced passes for college students. o Provide Wi-Fi in the bus, a simpler (more user-friendly website, and a smartphone/tablet app with a trip planner. Definition of Household for Low Income Fare Qualification Reduced ADA and TD fares are available for riders who qualify based on their annual household income and proof of income is required. Currently, acceptable types of proof of income are pension benefit statements, unemployment benefits, or current paystubs. However, these documents all tie to the individual's income rather than their household income. This may allow individuals to qualify for reduced fares based on their individual income when their household income is, in fact, high enough to support paying the full fare. At the same time, it should be recognized that individuals may live in a physical household with other family members, but still maintain separate finances. One example of this is an older parent living with their child, but still independent financially and supported by their own retirement/social security income. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters1000N.Ashley Dr. I Suite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 wwwAindaleoliver.com Tindale tOliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 1G planning drsign rgimacnng As part of this fare study, it is recommended that CAT maintain the requirement that qualification for the reduced/low-income fare be tied to a person's household income (rather than individual income). However, the documentation used to demonstrate qualification should prove that the household income meets the required threshold. Therefore, it is recommended that the proof of income be tied to a person's federal income tax return from the prior year (or state filing if from outside Florida). This will ensure that the most current annual household income figure is used to determine eligibility of the person and will reduce potential abuse of eligibility if the documentation provided does not reflect the true household income. At the same time, this will ensure that a person physically living in a household, but is otherwise financially independent as may still qualify for a reduced fare so long as they have filed their own taxes reflecting their own "household" income. It is recognized that not all individuals file federal taxes or can provide a federal tax return. To provide flexibility in these instances, CAT should also adopt a policy to consider other proof of income types (such as year-end social security statement, etc.) on a case-by-case basis for individuals who either cannot provide a federal income tax form or to document that their income has changed since their lasttax statement, such as due to job change or loss, now qualifyingthem forthe reduced fare. Fare Study Recommendations Based on the analysis completed duringthis study and the public outreach conducted through intercept surveys and public workshops in January 2018, the following recommendations are presented to the LCB for further consideration. Fixed -Route Fare Structure Recommendations For fixed -route fares, Scenario 6 in this memo is recommended as the preferred scenario (this is Scenario D presented at the public workshops). This includes: • Increase the fixed -route fare to $2 ($1 reduced), which has support if a 90 -minute free transfer were implemented, and the cost of the day pass was reduced to $3, and the additional revenue went to enhance the services provided. Therefore, it is recommended to increase the fixed route fare by $0.50, provide a free 90 -minute transfer, and reduce the day pass to $3 as part of a consolidated package to optimize use of the day pass while reducing possible ridership reduction associated with increasing the one-way fare. • Eliminate the existing 7 -day pass and replace with a 15 -day pass at 50% of the cost of the 30 - day pass. This had support from the public as the 30 -day pass is too expensive for many riders and the 7 -day pass cost per trip is considerably higher than the other passes and generates the lowest ridership and utilization of all pass types. In this case, the 15 -day pass would be priced at $20 ($10 reduced) based on increasing the cost of the 30 -day pass to $40 as the next bullet describes. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE wwwAindaleoliver.com Headquarters 1000 N. Ashley Dr. 1 Suite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 Tindale Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 17 Increase the cost of the 30 -day pass from $35 to $40 ($20 reduced). Input from the public did not indicate that this would be a considerable hardship for existing riders and it will put the cost per trip for the 30 -day pass more in line with the cost per trip forthe other passes offered, while still providing the lowest cost per trip for all of CAT's fare options. Increase the cost of the Marco Express single fare from $2.50 to $3 ($1.50 reduced) to bring it more in line with the cost of the Marco Express 30 -day pass. Regarding the current use of the smartcard, there are two recommendations: • The cost of a smartcard -based pass currently involves two transactions, a $2 transaction to purchase the smartcard, then a purchase for the 30 -day pass, a combined cost of $37. This process takes time and adds a disincentive for riders to purchase the 30 -day pass. Our recommendation is to eliminate the cost of the smartcard in conjunction with the fare increase for the 30 -day pass. The revenue impacts for new card purchases are anticipated to be minimal, but the added initial cost may discourage new riders. While smartcard purchases have generated $2,500-$3,000 in annual revenue over the last two years, this is primarily due to the influx of initial purchases of 30 -day passes upon introduction of this fare media. In the future, the cost of the smartcard should be included in the price of the pass. If the price of a 30 -day pass increases from $35 to $40, then the net effect is a $3 fare increase for new 30 -day pass users. Eliminating the smartcard fee may encourage new riders who otherwise feel an initial $42 cost for a 30 -day pass is too high. • If the fee to purchase a smartcard is maintained, additional fare options should be introduced that combines the cost of the smartcard and the full or reduced 30 -day pass price into one fare when a customer needs to purchase a smart card. For example, to reload a 30 -day pass would cost $35 current, or $40 if the pass price changes. To purchase a new or replacement card in conjunction with a 30 -day pass, the price would be $37 current, or $42 if the pass price changes. This eliminates the need forthe two transactions currently required to purchase the smartcard and pass separately, therefore saving time (especially when purchasing the pass onboard the bus). Paratransit Fare Structure Recommendations Given that the last fare increase in 2012 applied only to paratransit fares and public outreach indicates that a fare increase at any level would provide a financial hardship to many paratransit riders, it is recommended that Scenario 14 be implemented at this time. This will maintain existing ADA and TD fares for most riders, while consolidating the number of TD fares provided, thereby decreasing the fares for TD riders who currently pay $5 or $7 to $4. The purpose of this change is to simplify the administration and collection of the TD fare program. At such time the ADA and TD fares are increased, it is recommended that CAT explore implementation of an unlimited paratransit monthly pass or discounted ticket book (i.e., book of 10 or 20 ride tickets at a reduced cost per trip than a single fare) to offset the overall financial impacts for frequent ADA orTD users. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters1000N.Ash1ey Dc 1 SUite400 I Tampa,FL33602 1 (813)224-88621 Fax(813)226-2106 www. ti nd aleoliver.com Tindale �:<Oliver GREAT INSIGHTS. GREATER OUTCOMES. Page 18 plannmg 1 design snrgmecnng In conjunction with the above, it is also recommended that CAT implement a fare increase of up to $1 for all ADA and TD riders within the next two years. Providing considerable advance notice of a future fare change to riders should reduce potential ridership loss, while generating the additional fare revenue needed to maintain existing service levels as operating costs continue to increase. Thereafter it is also recommended that subsequent increases to the ADA/TD fares be tied to changes to the fixed - route base fare. Other Policy Recommendations In addition to the recommended fare changes it is also recommended that CAT explore implementing the following policy changes: • Sale of passes at third party vendors (such as grocery and convenience stores) as this had considerable support by the public. • Use of a phone/computer app to purchase passes/fares; this concept was also desired by the public. • Include college-age students and active/retired military personnel as eligible for reduced fare with valid ID. • Update the definition of"household income" and required documentation as recommended in the "Definition of Household for Low Income Fare Qualification" section above. • Further incentivize the Business Pass Program by maintaining the currently corporate 30 -day pass rate of $29.75 if the 30 -day pass fare is increased to $40 as recommended above. The federal tax incentive for private employers to subsidize employees' commuter benefits, including transit passes, was eliminated underthe federal tax reform signed into law in December 2018. To overcome the loss of this tax incentive, a 25% reduced 30 -day pass may re -incentivize private employers to offer transit passes for their employees. • Implement a promotional "Try Transit" day where fixed -route fares are waived on a designated day to encourage infrequent or new riders to try CAT's service. Revenue impacts for providing a free transit day will likely be minimal as only revenue from single ride or day passes that would have otherwise been purchased that day will not be generated. TAMPA ORLANDO BARTOW FORT LAUDERDALE BALTIMORE SEATTLE Headquarters 1000 K Ashley Dr. I Suite 400 I Tampa, FL 33602 1 (813) 224-8862 1 Fax(813)226-2106 wwwAinda Ieoliver.com E, XECUTTVR SUMMARY Committee Action Item 5b Request to endorse to Renew Members for the Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC) Objective: To obtain endorsement of two new members for the Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC). Considerations: PTNE staff submits for the Public Transit Advisory Committee consideration, two applications for the prescribed vacancies. The applicants have been evaluated based on their potential contribution to the PTAC and are recommended on those criterions to be eligible for the committee. lvh•. Richard Duggan will represent District School Board of Collier County through his employment with the District School Board of Collier County. Due to his role in the community this member will be an asset to this committee by providing feedback and advice to staff and vendors on improving transit operations and efficiencies in Collier County. Mr. Harold Weeks will represent the Transit Riders, due to his role in the community this member will be an asset to this committee by providing feedback and advice to staff and vendors on improving transit operations and efficiencies in Collier County, Recommendation: That the PTAC endorses the new memberships for the PTAC which will be taken to the next available Board meeting for final approval. Attachments: Applications Prepared by: Date:'Om r De Leon; Operations Analyst Approved by: l Date: 3-4 10a Michelle Arnold, PINE Division Director Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239)252-8400 Application was received on: 2/17/2018 6:30:55 PM. Name: Harold G. Weeks Home Phone: 508 930 5726 Home Address: 17855 Sanctuary Circle #2 City: Naples Zip Code: 34104 Phone Numbers Business: 239 455 5714 E -Mail Address: cah weeks aol.com Board or Committee: Public Transit Advisory Committee Category: Not indicated Place of Employment: How long have you lived in Collier County: mare than 15 How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: I am a year-round resident Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree misdemeanor only)? No� Notlndicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? No Notlndicated NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Notlndicated Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes PTAC 2014 -present Please list your community activities and positions held: Education: Experience / Background Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239)252-8400 Application was received on: 2/20/2018 11:24:13 AM. Name: Richard Duggan Home Phone: 239-825-4839 Home Address: 770 7Th Street SW City: Naples Zip Code: 34117 Phone Numbers Business: 239-377-0120 E -Mail Address: IduRRanri 0c, collierschools.com Board or Committee: Public Transit Advisory Committee Category: Not indicated Place of Employment: Collier County Public Schools How long have you lived in Collier County: more than 15 How many months out of the year do you reside in Collier County: I am a year-round residen Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense (any level felony or first degree Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? No Not Indicated NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No Not Indicated Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold an elected office? No Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a Collier County board or committee? Yes Public Transit Advisory Committee Please list your community activities and positions held: Public Transit Advisory Committee Education: Highest - Ed.S Educational Leadership 120 Years Public Education (Behavior Analvst and School Administrator)l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reports and Presentation Item 6a CAT Performance Measures Objective: Present Collier Area Transit Performance Measures Considerations: Staff will present the quarterly Performance Measures to the committee for review recommendations for improvements. Recommendation: None. Attachment: Item Werformance Measures.xlsx Prepared by Date: �� I Omar De Leon, Senior Planner Approved by: Date: Michelle Arnold, PTNE Division Director �. l"I o ry .Qi N o wV �n n m iv ry m M T Rm om Nm Ui t m m (O N N N 10 Q O N A } m N m N O H r Ol N VI O Q Q N ti N N emi m N m O N m N et'i�1 Q O ti ei m eNi N Q '1 a m m n mI QI NN �I�` mNQmI � NN GI mA ml Nm a al Nl N ml or of m Ql mrNm Q N W W, ti m C N m� N , Q mi Q V V m m N' N m O N l0 n N m N N Q � m Q Q Q m Ip Ip O A N m NI 1p V y j m N m V N V O !� NO m Omi IQO -WIN N N' o 2 m n N vi ONi O O N vi m m C M V i7 N � _ .. m m rr^ m o 0 0 0 0 0 o a n „ m ti N N N m N a m O m N O Rm om Ui m m (O N N N 10 Q [p m- � m ti r o m n o o� m Y N N N m O N A y m N m N N Ol N N a 01 m O N N i� N r n W OJ m O N' A N A" 1L o n m N ynj O cmmnmNmQQNQ°0 1n➢ N tN0 r N V m N N m vwf° m n fl W m n mI QI NN �I�` mNQmI � NN GI mA ml Nm a al Nl N ml or of m Ql mrNm Q N W W, ti m C N m� N , Q mi Q V V m m N' N m O N l0 n N m N N Q � m Q Q Q m Ip Ip O A N m NI 1p V y j m N m V N V O !� NO m Omi IQO -WIN N N' o 2 m n N vi ONi O O N vi m m C M V i7 N � _ .. m m rr^ m o 0 0 0 0 0 o a n „ m ti N N N m N a m v N N N N N N N N N N aE v ,- , t v_ f F r F F F F F f f F F F F F a c o O 0 o A LL R ?75Q' vvi r 000000000222002000000 O m N O Rm om Ui m m (O N N N 10 Q [p m- � m ti r o m n o o� m Y N N N m O N A y m N m N N Ol N N a 01 m O N O i� m r n W A A n A A Q y m 1L o N A m V O n v N N N N N N N N N N aE v ,- , t v_ f F r F F F F F f f F F F F F a c o O 0 o A LL R ?75Q' vvi r 000000000222002000000 O m N O m (O N N N 10 Q [p m- � Y O O N N m O N A y m m N m N (p m n N M m Q O O m N O u] O m y Q n l0 N m � f0 O Q o N A m V O n v N N N N N N N N N N aE v ,- , t v_ f F r F F F F F f f F F F F F a c o O 0 o A LL R ?75Q' vvi r 000000000222002000000 0 �R e r 9 �R �R X �g 9 eA eF 2° eC � d� � � o 000000m000 oomomo a 00000000a00000000 00 N 6 W rl mj O N r�oN seam T �mmmm.- E m d ,^�Mm�vmv�neufOimve��e��o`"_ a < I . m N m , y w w w Nw m W N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J 7 J J 0 J J J J J J J J>> J J 0 J F KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKWOO rl mj I T E m d a < I . m m , a' a � n N LL ' N 0 N r e'I LL C - m N a rz 10 CC. G N U N CL L L � d ry b rN n E 0 a a E z° F o m O 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Committee Action Item 6b Transit Development Plan Goals and Objectives Objective: To establish strategies for accomplishing the Transit Development Plan (TDP) Goals and Objectives selected to accomplish during the next fiscal year. Considerations: As part of the requirement to receive State Block Grant Funds for transit system operations, each transit agency must develop a Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update every five years and an annual update/progress repot for all other years. Collier Area Transit had a Major Update completed in May of 2015. In order to make this document a living and usable document staff and the PTAC reviewed the goals and objectives during the last meeting and the committee members identified the initiatives they felt should be a priority. The attached list contains the Goals and Objectives selected by the committee to be their focus for the next years. Some of the items selected included initiatives that staff is currently working on. Recommendation: To receive input from the PTAC on strategies that you would like to suggest as possible ways of furthering the unmet objectives. Prepared by: V� Date: L Yousi Cardeso, Operations Analyst Approved by: �AJr Date: '✓"�i' I� Michelle Arnold, PTNE Division Director Em T c CL v v 0 v v 0 0 -p bD a V C 9 O C C O 0 G G c N N N L O N m N O N m m a: on a ` o f0 wY L E L L L L Ul N > U O > > m a Q a v c v"i .p m = ` m Y Q O c C E O o U N C C H p O_ L •- •- Y Q U1 V1 b0 Q c LAo Y Q. Q Y VI to N a\ T N N m �^ u m of C i— O a N 0 Ul a N m Q C 0 U U N c C a - .` m 2 c T m E p Y a o a aYcN aYW E'oO > u> vZ vN O N O m 'Hvc N L yu a mO Yvm Y0vvmi L-am , > O m u p 9Uc O 0 w Nvp OC . Q > a o u c m 0 u Z .'_^ O- m UE. U �_ H Q m N u C i m 0 Q m Q >- m w >i m m N m =_ O m u N m C O t+. p tl0j m C �p C Lm c 0 E 3 v a a `0 0 v i o @ Yv, u L W p Vt 01 ._ > QO > ..- Q 'YS -j Q ® T Q T N }, p c{S V- O;(I N O •y m < m m U u O_ > c m m 'p v W t`O ?; ,p O O C c p N O Z Z 0 O Z m Z u Im N > 0 ` c a m Q .> m O Y �^ C v O c Y y C C N T Y ,p �n c C C E o "- v Ol O Y O Y .7 „- iD _v m v L v t Y O v a L ''' VI m. ai ,� .� m " i Q .m E N 3 m v- s �, o u " m� m m o m m c ", c •++.�u U1 v am E E o v a c I O c O un N N U Y Y Q N p O— m m N p L c 'O d c N m M `�- N O N 0 a L i u O U Y O a O 3 X C N E -p O O -p O ` O O .fl a O L O a n c °' w o` o« c — v 0 W.0., °a Y^ c m X E o o '� v N '-' C N W m N O O Y N a N y- > U O C .p Y E U Y '''' cp L L L v, — Q O N O T u L O m O E C O C C bA *' Y u m m L Y T m N m O vi a T p Q 4- �' =' v, O o n u 0 c E a o m o m E 0 3 a v a m L N v t= m '^ v u r° v c U N m Q o Y 3 v 0" Q c v m L o m v v t Q v m u c O O L -p O E O �n Y E u Y c L Y m L pq m C_ O a Y c N u O E G N j N .N O Y L N V O v a c N Y_ Y 0 Q Y In - Q Y C Y E m m 3 0 M w 0 Ul L c N N O Y u L N O L c Y �:: la N Y N a m Y N Q U U V Y O u Q m Q C " > u H Q X N *' N N m O Q N U O O w U G m Ul O.'`� X C O U W m d a a m E Q O E O YO O � � n N Ln o 0 r4 N o N l7 c -i ri c -i C7 vi L i l7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reports and Presentation Item 6c Vendor Contract Amendments Objective: Review Amendments to Vendors Contracts Considerations: The Collier County Board approved and executed a contract amendment with MV Transit to implement changes in procedures and policies that will improve the operational performance of the service. The Contract Amendment also implemented additional or more severe liquidated damages for Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) that will affect the contractor 'financially for failing to achieve the desired performance measures. a. Performance Measure Changes - The performance standards will be reviewed monthly and incentive payments or reductions will be applied monthly. Added language and liquidated damages o Failure to escort ADA Passenger - $100.00 per incident o Excessively late Para -transit trip - $50.00 per trip o Falsely recording of Arrive/Perform status of the trip - $50.00 per incident o Missed trip - $50.00 per trip o Closed Run due to driver staffing issue - $250.00 per run b. Staffing - The contract amendment implements changes to improve the ability for the operations contractor to recruit drivers. • Training Requirements - Changed to 114 hours for Para -transit operators and 167 hours for fixed route operators. The original contract required that all operators were trained for both para -transit and fixed route services with total horns of 212 hours. • Vehicle Licensure - Changed to require the driver licensure to meet Florida driver's license requirements and endorsement that is consistent with State Requirements for proper class and weight specifications. The original contract required that all drivers have Commercial Driver's License. The Board will consider changes to the Scheduling & Dispatching Vendor's Contract to address service needs for scheduling and dispatching, particularly for the paratransit service to add a part-time Scheduler/Dispatcher to assist with covering absentees' relief to avoid impacting the operations. Additionally, based upon lessons learned through the implementation of the Agreement and future Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) planned for the enhancement of the transit system, the County and the Contractor agree that the addition of a Senior ITS professional to assist with the implementation and maintenance of those systems will promote the efficient operation of the transit system and is in the public interest. The Pricing Structure is being amended to reflect the proposed staffing change. Like MV, the MTM Contract is being amended to implemented additional or more severe liquidated damages for Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) that will affect the contractor financially for failing to achieve the desired performance measures. Similar KPIs noted above are being recommended for amendment for MTM. a. Performance Measure Changes- • The performance standards will be reviewed monthly and incentive payments or reductions will be applied monthly. • Added language and liquidated damages o Excessively late Para -transit trip - $50.00 per trip o Closed Run due to driver staffing issue - $250.00 per run o Failure to report incomplete and inaccurate driver manifests - $50 per day/occurrence. Recommendation: None. Attachment: None Prepared by:/l �>�--- Date: Michelle Arnold, PTNE Division Director Approved by: (vi �j�-- Date: Michelle Arnold, PTNE Division Director