Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 1, 1982 (43)COMMUN I CAT IONS CITY CLERK City Clerk Reimche presented a letter which had been received frogs the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works with the following recommendation to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors that the Board: RECOMMENDA- a) Direct the Department of Public Works to negotiate an TIONS REC'D Agreement with the City of Lodi for expansion of the City's• FROM S.J. COUNTY Dial -A -Ride service to the Woodbridge area and DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS RE DIAL- b) Direct the Department of Public Works to prepare an STA A -RIDE Claim based on the terms of a negotiated Agreement with the City of Lodi, and c) Direct that the Department of Public Works at the conclusion of negotiations with the City of Lodi present to the Board for its review and approval, a negotiated agreement an STA Claim for the proposed expansion of transit services in the Woodbridge area. iijuncil asked that this matter be discussed at a future S hirt- -- l eevt- -,ess i ml . _PUBLIC WORKS ITEM #z-- 8/31/82­� WILLIAM J. WARD �t t� JACK L. NAVONE awCCTao evuf. DMtC •Ow �•I•• ..��* HENRY M_ N/RATA o�wr• o.wac.ow WILLIAML_ CY►NCR COUNTY 4F SAN JOAQUIN o[w,v o.wttTow DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS T O. ®OX 1010 — 1010 E. 14AXELTOPI AVENUE STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 99201 92091 044-2201 Board of Supervisors Courthouse Stockton, CA 95202 August 25, 1982 Reviewed and Approved: C. E. Dixon County Administrator PROPOSAL FOR MEETING: TRANSIT NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE UNINCORPORATED WOODBRIDGE AREA Dear Board Members: As you are aware, under the Transportation Development Act (TDA) before Local Transportation Funds (LTF) may be allocated for street and road purposes, it. is mandated by the Transportation Development Act that all "reasonable unmet transit needs" identified in the unincorporated areas must be met by the County. Early this year, at the Board's direction, hearings were held by the County in each supervisorial district to determine the transit needs of the outlying communities. As a result of those hearings the Woodbridge area vocalized a transportation need and community members submitted a petition signed by local residents to that effect. (See attached.) In accordance with the State's mandate relative to "reasonable transit needs", the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (COG) developed a proposal for meeting those transit needs identified in the Woodbridge area As back- ground, the proposal explained that Woodbridge is situated in the Lodi Planning area, outside the city limits. In the recent past, transit service was available from the Community Action Council. It was removed about 111 years ago during a change in the agency's role in the County. The residents still have needs to travel to Lodi for various reasons. Therefore, it appeared reasonable that the City of Lodi's Dial -A -Ride service might be explored as a potential alternative to serving Woodbridge residents. This proposal is only an option for the Board's consideration. The responsibility for defining "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet" rest with the local COG as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the area. While a need may be identified by the COG in an unincorporated area, the County may not view that need as "reasonable to meet". If this becomes the case, then the County has two options: first, to develop an alternative proposal for meeting those "needs" which the County does feel is "reasonable" or if no reasonable alternative is apparent; second, to appeal to AUG 31 t9S2 0 Board of Supervisors e • o -2- August 25, 1982 the local COG Executive Board recommending they reverse their finding based on the County's conclusions. The Council of Governments proposal estimated the population for the Woodbridge area based on the census tract that represents Woodbridge, and included an estimate of elderly and low income persons. Based on this information, the COG projected 2,924 one-way. trips or passengers would exist: per year. The proposal included cost figures using the City of Lodi's present operation format. At present, Lodi reimburses the cab company $3.00 for every one-way trip carried with a City ticket. This is assumed to be the full cost to the cab company of providing one trip. Assume the service is available 250 days a year (Monday through Friday. for 50 weeks) and 12 hours a day (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). Although Woodbridge is about 2 miles from central Lodi, the COG estimated the cost per trip to the cab company might increase above the currently reimbursed level. Based on this assumption, they estimated the following costs would prevail. System Farebox Net Fare/ Cost/ Trip/ Cost/Year Return (10X) Cost Trip Trip Hour $10,234 $1,023 $9,211 $.35 $3.50 .975 It was also assumed that the City's service with their six new vehicles has the capacity to fill the need of approximately one trip per hour. Pursuant to this proposal, a meeting was held with the Assistant City Manager of Lodi and verbal communication with the Lodi City Council resulted in the initiation of direction to explore potential use of the existing Lodi Dial -A -Ride taxi service by Woodbridge area residents. The Assistant City Manager contacted the local cab company with whom they contract for services. The cab company indicated they can provide the service at a cost of $3.50 to $4.00 per ride which could be determined as a result of negotiations through the City of Lodi with the cab company. The City's service operates under the following format. The City prints cab tickets and distributes those tickets to several key points within the city. Lodi area residents purchase the tickets. The fare structure is: elderly .50 - per one-way ride general 2.00 - per one-way ride The cab company turns the tickets into the City bi-weekly and the City reimburses the cab company $3.00 per ticket. The cab company in turn purchases their gas and maintenance from the City. The cab company pays for their insurance out of the $3.00. The Assistant City Manager suggests that the County submit a proposal to the City Council based on this same plan with the exception that the County could charge whatever they deemed necessary for a one-way trip, as long as they did not charge less than the City's current fare structure. County Board of Supervisors - 3 - August 25, 1982 tickets would be sold at a location predesignated in Woodbridge (probably the nutrition site), and would be calor coded to easily distinguish them from City tickets. (Attached is a map of the generally proposed Woodbridge service are -a). The County has two funding alternatives for the project. The first option is to claim LTF funds "off the top" of the County's apportionment. This alternative results in the Couinty having less money available for streets and roads. The second option is to request State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to offset the cost of this activity. This funding source is currently utilized by the County to fund both the Department of Aging's/Community Council elderly/ handicapped Countywide medical escort and the Public Works Department's South County Area Transit, a fixed route general ridership service in the Manteca, Lathrop and French Camp areas. STA funding appears the most viable alternative for the 82-83 program. Under this option the County would submit a claim for STA funds and then pay the City of Lodi through an agreement on a per ride, per month basis. This would be a demonstration project to determine the level of service necessary to meet the needs of the area. "Expenditures to Meet COG Identified Reasonable Un -Met Transit Needs" is one of the proposed funding priorities for 82-83 STA funds set forth by the COG in committee. The COG's demographics projected 2,924 one-way trips annually. Based on these estimates and because of the potentially higher- cost of serving the %od- bridge area (projected at $3.50 per trip), it is proposed that if the County is to provide this service, it should be based on a slightly higher fare structure than that of the City of Lodi. Proposed Fares Elderly $1.00 per one-way ride General $2.50 per one-way ride The City of Lodi has indicated that most of its ridership is elderly. Therefore, if it is projected that 10% of the Woodbridge ridership would be general and 90% elderly, then the cost and revenue breakdown is as follows: Costs 2,924 riders X $3.50 per one-way trip - $10,234 10% fare -box return Revenues 292 (10X) X $2.50 - _ 21632 (90X) X $1.00 - 2,924 TOTALS - $ 730 2,632 $3,362 - $ 1,023 The above projections would result in a fare -box return of $3,362 (33X) a BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �� =t 4 - tio� August .25, 1982 4 . Since it would cost considerably more for the County to put out to bid the contract for a complete transit service, or to expand any of the existing County services (eg. SCAT b CC!DOA) for the small area of Woodbridge, the COG'S proposal appears the most cost effective option presently available. This option would require the County to negotiate an agreement with the City of Lodi for expansion of its Dial -A -Ride service based on Lodi's existing service and subsequently, to prepare and submit an STA claim to fund the County's portion of the service. Since it is mandated by the Transportation Development Act that all ':reasonable unmet.transit needs" identified in the unincorporated areas be met by the County, therefore, if the Board wants to provide transpor- tation ransportalion services to the community of Woodbridge, then, IT IS RECOMSENDED: That the Board of Supervisors: 1. Direct the DepArtment of Public Works to negotiate an agreement with the City of Lodi for expansion of the City's Dial -A -Ride service to the Woodbridge area, and 2. Direct the Department of Public Works to prepare an STA claim based on the terms of a negotiated agreement with the City of Lodi, and 3. Direct that the Department of Public Works at the conclusion of negotiations with the City of Lodi present to the Board for its review and approval, a negotiated agreement and an STA claim for the proposed expansion of transit services in the Woodbridge area. Very truly yours, HHHaDB:dk -Y- 4n -William J. Wad Director of Public Works Att*achment cc: County Administrator's Office County Counsel's Office Auditor -Controller Council of Cove ments City of Lodi Board:Clerk Agenda date 8-31-82 �'', �%'- ..� /y ,_STT Y . .�}-L•!/��.L . `� Il y / v Z •s ! is Jr �I ..k.�t-t"� ��yt,. � ✓C�C' c.L • :fit t�'• �� � � d uta C-5 e wo Wei ulom Ml�. 7�74N rod!n� ■,j�;G �;nHn�©©�' rn °1 •' r • cel �1l� ■S� 1 , ae + aC /�\+�%� s .moi � + � is _<<. AA�1.1 � �• .iH°!'�G'l�OJCQO ��t o ? � �' ��.� ♦ A 9z / '�°i"+�, .ANG: ` r ,, �i: ��/j�+J��1p�� � .. � �� � .ice'►".'w .,, ' �A!�ifr�ll:.J31'C►7UJA► I. �•, +� � I v i1 •' C-7