Loading...
PTAC Minutes 03/20/2018MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING March 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: Chairman: Mr. John D1Marco (via teleconference) Vice Chairman: Mr. John Jenkins Mr. Arthurpobberstein 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. Randell Farwell, Tindale Oliver Mr. Brian Morales, General Manager with MV Transit Mr. Bary Bland, General Manager with MTM Page 1 1. Call to Order Vice -Chairman Jenkins called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. II, Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was not established, with three committee members present. However, Mr. DiMarco joined the meeting via teleconference. Mn Vogel entered a motion to allow Mr. DhWarco's participation in the meeting vin teleconference. Mr. Dabberstein seconded the motion. All members present were in favor. The motion was carried. III. Approval of Agenda Mit Weeks entered a motion to approve the March 20, 2018 meeting agenda. Mn Dabberstein seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion tvas carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes a. February 20, 2018 minutes. Mr. Vogel entered a motion to approve the minutes of the February 20, 2018 meeting minutes. Mit Weeks seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was carried unanimously. V. Committee Action a. Fare Study Mr. Randell Farwell of Tindale Oliver addressed the committee to provide an update on modifications made to the original study which had been previously presented, as well as the decision of the Local Coordinating Board following presentation of the study at their meeting. Mit Farwell restated the objectives of the original study were to analyze potential fixed route and paratransit fare changes, assess potential ridership and revenue impacts, identify fare policy recommendations, and examine ridership impacts and revenue impacts, particularly as they relate to low income riders, with the following results: o Feedback from all riders, both fixed route and paratrransit, indicated the preference of an even dollar amount fare, as well as strong support for the purchase of passes from third patty vendors, including a mobile application for purchasing passes. o The majority of respondents were in favor of a fare increase if revenues were applied toward the improvement of services. o ADA riders were generally in support of a fare increase of .50, with TD riders in support of up to a .25 fare increase. 0 60% of fixed route riders were generally in support of a slightly higher one-way fare, if it also included a free transfer. 71% felt that a one-way fare of $2+ was too high. Page 2 o 41% felt the pass option was too expensive, o 12% were unable to get to a location to purchase a pass, and/or found it too confusing to purchase a pass on the bus. Fare alternatives for fixed routes: Mr. Farwell advised the Committee that in studying fare alternatives for fixed routes, 7 scenarios were drafted, with 4 scenarios chosen for presentation to the public. Highlights included: o hicreasing the base fare, eliminating transfers, with a reduction .in the cost of the day pass. o Replacement of the 7 -day pass with a 15 -day pass, priced at half the cost of the 30 -day pass. o Increasing the price of the 30 -day pass since it is presently low in comparison to peer systems, but would remain a good value for the money. o Military (active and retired) and college student eligibility for reduced fare rates. Recommendations following analysis of the fixed routes were to: o Increase the base fare from $1.50 to $2.00, and from ,75 to $1.00 for the reduced fare, with a free 90 -minute transfer upon request, thus enhancing the value of the passes, with no penalty for transferring. o Lower the day pass from $4.00 to $3.00. o Provide a 15 -day pass at $20.00, $10.00 for the reduced fare. o Increase the 30 -day pass from $35.00 to $40.00, $20.00 for the reduced fare. o Increase in the Marco Express single fare ride from $2.50 to $3,00, $1.50 for the reduced fare. The anticipated impact of these changes would be an estimated $68,000 to$200,000 in additional revenue, with the least impact in terms of ridership. The Smart Card, a card which carries a stored value that may be renewed, was discussed. Use of this currently requires two transactions; a cash fee to purchase the card, in addition to the cost of the pass purchased using the card. To simplify the process one consideration is to waive the cost of the purchase of the card, which would be absorbed in the price of the pass. The cardholder would still have the option to register the card for tracking purposes and protect the remaining balance in the event it was lost or stolen. Any remaining balance may be transferred to a new card. If the card is not registered, however, there would be no remedy for the purchaser in the event a card was lost or stolen. Card registration may be done at the transfer center or on the bus, Question: What is the incentive for riders to purchase a 30 -day pass? Answer: It is the more affordable option for frequent riders, with a savings reduction overall in cost per trip. Question: What is the benefit for riders to purchase a 15 -day pass versus the 30 -day pass? Page 3 Answer: The 15 -day pass is a more affordable option available for riders who are unable to pay the $40,00 price of the 30 -day pass. Question: Would there be a negative public reaction if free transfers were not offered with the increase in base fare? Answer: Yes, it is felt the ridership would decrease, with a related decrease in revenue. Question: What is the definition of a 30 -day pass? Answer: The pass would be good for 30 consecutive days from date of purchase, including weekends. Mr. Jenkins expressed a desire for the ability to purchase the Smart Card online via credit card, rather than the present system of cash payment at the transfer center, offering greater ease and accessibility to a larger segment of the population. Ms. Arnold stated that a "mobile ticket" option is presently under consideration, whereby passes may be purchased and stored on smart phone devices, with the potential for individuals, as well as einployers/agencies to utilize this service. Recommendations for paratransit/T13 riders: Mr. Farwell reviewed the steps taken when evaluating this Paratransit fares. Li studying fare alternatives for paratransit/TD riders, consideration was given for balancing the need for revenue to provide additional services, while also minimizing adverse impacts to paratransit/TD riders. The final recommendation is for no fare changes for paratransit riders at present. Consideration is being given for postponing the decision for any increases to the ADA fare for some time within the next 2 years, in order to monitor paratransit services to better assess needs when the next fare increase is considered. TD eligibility is presently based on a 5 level pay structure, which is a sliding scale based on documented income per individual. Simplification of the existing fare structure via consolidation of fare options is proposed, specifically comprised of $1.00, $3.00 or $4.00 fares, and eliminating the $5.00 and $7.00 options. Question: Will there be a significant loss in revenue by the consolidation of fare options? Answer: There is an estimated $6,000 annual revenue loss, however the study did not include an analysis of anticipated increase in ridership with fare consolidation. Question: May passes be used for paratransit/TD riders? Answer: No, there is no fare box on paratransit buses. Riders pay with cash or purchased tickets. Question: Would affording paratransit/TD riders the ability to purchase and use passes help to offset the potential $6,000 annual revenue loss anticipated by not increasing the current fares? Page 4 Answer: Not initially due to the cost of purchase and installation of fare boxes on paratransit buses. A better understanding of the population is important as well, i.e., who may not be tech savvy or may simply be resistant to change. Question: May credit/debit cards be used as a method of payment on these buses? Answer: The use of credit/debit cards on the bus is generally not ideal due to connectivity and/or server issues, as well as delays caused to the boarding process. Other policy recommendations for the Fixed route system included: • Expanding the sale of passes via third party vendors. • Use of smart phone applications for fare payment, as well as for the purchase of passes. • College age students and active/retired military personnel eligibility for reduced fares. • Incentivize business pass programs by maintaining the 30 -day corporate day pass at a $29.75 rate, • Implement a "fiee transit day" to attract infrequent or new riders. Question: Would fare boxes need to be installed on the paratransit buses to allow the use of these new smartphone applications? Answer: Only the "reader" would need to be installed. Question: Why was age 6 determined to be the age at which a child's fare would be required? Answer: Age cutoffs were determined as policy decisions. Next Steps: Presentation to the MPO Board on May 11, 2018. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on June 12, 2018. Mr. Jenkins entered a motion to approve the Collier County Fare Study as presented. Mr. DiMarco seconded the motion. All committee members were in favor. The motion was curried b. Endorse the renewal of Members Mr. Duggan and Mr. Weeks submitted applications for renewal as members of the Public Transit Advisory Committee. Mr. Weeks entered a motion to recommend the reappointment of Mr. Duggan to the Public Transit Advisory Committee. Mr. Dobberstein seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was carried Mr. DiMarco entered a motion to recommend the reappointment of Mr. Weeks to the Public Transit Advisory Committee, Mr. Dobberstein seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was carried Page 5 VI. Reports and Presentations a. Performance Measures —Mr. Omar DeLeon Quarterly ridership performance measures were reviewed, reflecting a steady decline in ridership since October 2017. Low performance routes have been identified and studied for areas of improvement, with the initial phase of changes to commence April 1, 2018. Specifically, routes 20, 25, and 26 were chosen for a reduction in service level, while adding service to routes 11 and 12, with increased frequency during peak service. Additional service will be also added to the Ave Maria, route 28, and including Manatee Road as part of modification to route 18. The second phase of service changes next season are expected to include increased service to the Town Center at Ave Maria, which has been endorsed by the Stewardship and the local community, as well as to the Arthtex facility on Oil Well Road. Mr. Aobberstein asked why the ridership on Route 28 increased by 47%? (Route 28 travels from Immokalee to Naples, ending at the Government Center). Staff advised the group that there has been increased marketing efforts through Staff participation at public meetings, as well as on Spanish language television, Univision, providing information on the routes, as well as how to access public transit information. Route 20 reflects a significant increase in ridership as well; however, both routes 20 and 28 offer limited service, so these numbers may appear higher. No adjustments to either route have recently been made. A review of ridership patterns on route 28 will be done to determine what, if any contributing factors to the increase may be identified. Mr. Jenkins stated feedback had recently been received which indicated full capacity on the Marco Island route, with some passengers standing, and felt perhaps additional service should be added on this route. Ms. Arnold stated that at this time, only routes 11 and 12, which includes U.S. 41 North and Airport Road, are planned for additional service beginning in April 2018. Feedback from the Immokalee area indicated that while written route information is available in Spanish, English, and Creole, a need remains for verbal education as well. A travel training day event is planned in Immokalee, date to be determined, which will be a hands -ori training event for the public to learn how to utilize the bus system. Other potential reasons contributing to lower ridership were discussed, including increased automobile ownership, increased cost of living which has forced many service workers to live outside of Collier County, and heavier dependence on ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft. Unfortunately, public transit revenue hours have not changed in the past five years, with only the Immokalee route added to provide service to that area. The need remains for additional operating revenue for the transit system to remain competitive to retain and improve ridership. Page 6 Mr. Dobberstein recommended consideration of a park -and -tide option, offering pickup from a collection point at the Lee County line, with service south into Naples. Mr. DeLeon stated that several locations throughout the county are presently being considered as park-and-ride pickup points, and a Lee County line pickup point could be considered as part of a future planned park-and-ride study. In support of this option, there is presently an agreement in place which allows Collier County buses to travel into Lee County. A dedicated bus lane was also mentioned as a possible way to incentivize citizens to utilize the transit system. b. TAP Goals and Objectives ES Several objectives within the Transit Development Plan were presented for committee discussion, as well as solicitation of ideas to move these objectives forward. Mr. Dobberstein asked why the TDP contains a goal to increase ridership by I% each year when national trends show a decrease in ridership due to overall lower gas prices, ride sharing services, etc. Are there other goals/objectives that should be given priority, given the current trends? Staff advised that this objective was an area of improvement previously identified by the Advisory Committee. Plans to implement ideas for increased ridership are presently underway, including increasing the frequency on routes I 1 and 12. Mr, Jenkins stated the use of a Smart Card and making the process as easy as possible for people to access and utilize would be extremely beneficial; making public transit work for the public. Mr. Dobberstein suggested greater public/employer outreach with assistance from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Jenkins suggested more community partnerships, such as with NCH and Arthrex, offering employee pass programs, as well as corporate discounts to the employers, and potentially extending these benefits to employee family members. Mr. Dobberstein suggested a partnership with the school district and its employees. Ms. Arnold stated that conversations have been had with the school district, as well as libraries to encourage ridership, and these relationships need to be strengthened and expanded. Mr. Jenkins inquired as to a partnership with local malls, such as Coastland Center. Mr. DeLeon stated this concept was successfully implemented in Miami -Dade, but would require someone to initiate and manage such a program here. Page 7 Ms. Arnold stated consideration is being given to partner with tourist based companies and hoteliers who offer presold packages, to possibly include a bus pass in the sale of the package. Ms. Arnold presented the possibility of a partnership with a group such as Friends of Transit, who would assist in establishing an Adopt a Shelter or Adopt a Rider program. Mr. Weeks pointed out that this type of program would need to be originated and implemented through such a group, and would need to be reviewed by the County Attorney. Due to the lengthy process involved, it was felt that it would be worthwhile to pursue this as soon as possible. C. Vendor Contract Amendment Ms. Arnold provided an update on modifications made to the operating vendor's contract with MV Transit, which was approved by the BOCC in February 2018. MV Transit is responsible for providing the bus drivers, training, management of job assignments, etc. The previous contract stipulated the requirement of a CDL (commercial driver's license) for potential applicants. The modified contract removed the CDL stipulation in order to expand the applicant pool for paratransit bus drivers, since the size of these buses does not require a CDL license. Training requirements were also modified to fit the type of service being provided; i.e., fixed route versus paratransit. In addition, performance measures were modified, as well as language modification regarding liquidated damages in order to incentivize the achievement of performance measures. An amendment is being brought to the BOCC April. 10, 2018 regarding MTM, the scheduling and dispateb/customer service vendor, requesting to add a part-time scheduler/dispatcher, as well as an IT professional to assist with the implementation of planned online services. In addition, performance measures were modified, as well as language modification regarding liquidated damages in order to be consistent with what is required of MV Transit, Ms. Arnold farther stated that the current contract model is presently under review and based upon the size of the Public Transit system, the old model which supported one vendor is seen to be more appropriate. Changes to the contract and subsequent implementation are targeted for late spring/summer. Mr. Dobberstein expressed concern at the removal of the CDL requirement for drivers and encouraged a subsequent review be done to measure any potential negative impacts caused by the removal of this requirement. Staff advised the committee that even with removal of this requirement, Collier Transit maintains higher standards than most other similar organizations. The much larger Chicago Transit Authority has also recently removed the CDL requirement. The CDL requirement pertains more to the size of the vehicle driven and not to the quality of the Page 8 driver. This will also afford drivers the opportunity to be promoted to fixed route driver status upon acquisition of CDL licensure. Question: Is CDL training done in-house or must drivers acquire this training elsewhere? Answer: Drivers must obtain CDL training externally, as there is no in-house training offered. Question: May individuals with previous felonies be considered as drivers and/or with CDL training? Answer: The County requires rigorous background checks and each application would need to be considered based upon the findings of the report. Question: Why are performance measures in place? Answer: Performance measures were put in place in response to issues previously encountered. Question: If there is a scheduling error, coupled with a driver error, which vendor is penalized? Answer: The expectation is for coordination between the two vendors; however, a subsequent review would be done to determine culpability. Driver incentives were discussed. Incentive pay is awarded to the vendor if they exceed stated goals, with a disincentive penalty if they fall below a stated goal. Mr. Dobberstein suggested the Advisory Committee be periodically updated as to the review findings following the removal of the CDL requirement and performance measures changes, in addition to more information with regard to bus fleet numbers. Mr. Vogel noted improvements on the paratransit buses in regard to updated technology. Ms. Arnold noted that 20% of the paratransit trips are to be provided on buses are owned by MV Transit, and the drivers are being equipped with 1Pads linked to the Route Match scheduling system, with the removal of the use of paper manifests to promote greater efficiency. Mr. Dobberstein inquired about who is responsible for the maintenance of the vendor owned paratransit buses? Mr. Brian Morales, General Manager, MV Transit, clarified for the committee that a local vendor is contracted with, who provides vehicle maintenance. A preventative maintenance program was required from MV Transit prior to the commencement of the contract with the County, with service maintenance every 5I{ miles in keeping with county and vendor standards. These buses share the CAT and MV Transit logos. Fuel is also purchased for these buses by MV Transit from a secondary vendor. These buses are stored at a location on Radio Road with the other vehicles owned by MV Transit. The buses are kept in sel vice through 250K miles, at which point they are reviewed for continued use. Prior to use, these vehicles must be ADA compliant and pass inspection by the County maintenance manager, as well as meet the internal standards set by Page 9 MV Transit. There are presently a total of 34 paratransit vehicles in service in the County, with 8 owned by MV Transit, affording a "spare ratio" of 20%. Question: Why are there presently two vendors, rather than keeping with the original concept of one vendor, and why is the change now being made to switch back to just one? Answer: Other jurisdictions were studied and it was determined that a two -vendor system could provide greater efficiency. However, for the size of the Collier public transit system, the two -vendor system does not necessarily allow the desired flexibility and the one vendor system may provide greater efficiency overall. VII. Member Comments Mr. Weeks made an inquiry as to the status of the "Friends of the PTAC" organization and the subsidy of passes for paratransit/TD riders. Ms. Arnold stated that documents in this regard would need to be developed, which must then be reviewed and adopted by the BOCC. Mr. Weeks encouraged continued partnering between Public Transit and the Blue Zone initiative. VIII. Public Comments There were no public comments entered. IX. Next Meeting Date — April 20, 2018 X. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair. Publi ransit Advisory Committee John Jenkins, Vice -Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on presented or as amended Page 10