Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStreamline 1 Memo To: Bozeman City Commission From: Lisa Ballard, David Kack, and Lee Hazelbaker CC: Date: July 8, 2008 Re: Funding and future direction for Streamline to increase service Demand for expanded service leads to need for additional funding Every week we hear from Streamline riders and community members who want more service – longer hours, service to new locations, weekend service, or higher frequency. We need more funding from a reliable local source to build our service, and a mill levied by an Urban Transportation District (UTD) appears to be the best opportunity to collect that funding. The UTD provides the following advantages over our current situation or over a municipal bus system: ƒ Upon voter approval, the UTD can leverage mills to fund Streamline and Galavan. The amount is higher than a municipal system could leverage. A non-profit organization is unable to leverage mills. ƒ The UTD board members are focused on transportation. ƒ A UTD is politically better suited to provide service outside the City political boundaries compared to a municipal system. Since transportation needs do not match political boundaries, this is important. ƒ Transportation does not have to compete with other programs for funding from municipal general funds. Recommended UTD boundaries include Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners The Public Transportation Stakeholder’s Board has recommended the “Golden Triangle” as the UTD district boundaries. The board is still considering exact boundaries over which the County Commission has the jurisdiction for approval. These boundaries reflect the current service area and the portion of highest density in the county. County attorney has found that a petition is required for UTD formation; formation and funding must be on separate ballots The County Attorney has found that the law allows the UTD to be put on the ballot by petition. He also has found that the issue of forming the UTD must be put on the ballot alone. Only if voters pass this issue can we put forward the question of levying a mill on a subsequent ballot. When HRDC took responsibility for public transportation in 2005, the agreement signed by the Cities, the County, HRDC, and ASMSU stated that the governance will be reviewed in 2008; HRDC was meant to be a temporary manager of the system. The City-County Public Transportation Stakeholders’ Board wants to ask the public to form a UTD with millage, but they want to wait until after the vote for the jail. This puts us in the planning stage; the first step is to come to agreement on the makeup of the UTD board. Continued representation from Streamline players Streamline and Galavan, two popular and successful programs, are operating because of the funding and administration of the Associated Students of Montana State University (ASMSU) and the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC). Within HRDC and ASMSU are the people who have the history and knowledge related to the decisions and operations of Streamline/Galavan. The successful operation of the UTD, built on partnerships, requires continued, meaningful involvement by these two organizations. Thus, we propose that they have continued representation in the UTD board. If a UTD were formed, Galavan, a 35-year-old program that focuses on the needs of seniors and people with disabilities, would continue to be a program of the HRDC, as it has for the past few decades. Everyone needs to be involved To build the support from our community and to provide the best possible level of service possible, we need participation for anyone with an interest. Although we propose only 11 voting members of the UTD board, there will be ways for others to participate. The UTD board meetings are open to everyone, and historically, anyone who attends has had the same opportunity to participate equal to voting members. Beyond this, within the UTD structure would continue to have committees needing the participation of non-board members. These include: ƒ Galavan / ADA-required paratransit ƒ Operations / Planning ƒ Finance ƒ Marketing The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) will continue as an entity outside of the Urban Transportation District. The TAC, as defined by the Montana Department of Transportation, is a planning committee consisting of local transportation providers and interested community residents that serves as the local planning group who reviews and discusses transportation needs and resources for the local area. It is required by the MDT Transit Section, is responsible for the annual locally-developed coordination plan required in federal SAFETEA- LU legislation and must sign off on the annual application to MDT. Immediate need for $15,000 Streamline’s average daily ridership on its daytime fixed-routes in Fiscal Year 2008 was 60% higher than our first year of operation. Recent increases of gas prices and improved community awareness have lead to summer ridership surges. Fuel prices, along with a small reduction of funding from the Montana Department of Transportation, result in a projected shortfall of $15,000 to maintain existing services. We are making a request of the City to provide, at minimum, this level of funding immediately. z Page 2 z Page 3 If a UTD is not feasible within the next few years, funding of $137,000 per year (plus inflation) would allow us to start a fifth route. Decision Point The Bozeman City Commission is asked for the following decisions and guidance: ƒ Preference regarding administration of public transportation o Municipal bus system o Continued operation by the Human Resource Development Council o Urban Transportation District ƒ If support of an Urban Transportation District is given, guidance regarding o District boundaries o Timing of ballot initiative related to other City priorities ƒ Immediate funding of $15,000 to maintain existing services ƒ If support for a UTD does not exist, allocation of $137,000 per year for a fifth route. Streamline Ridership Statistics July 8, 2008 Prepared by Lisa Ballard, P.E. Streamline Coordinator Streamline Fixed Route Daytime Ridership FY 07 and FY 08 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 7/27/167/308/138/279/109/2410/810/2211/511/1912/312/1712/311/141/282/112/253/103/244/74/215/55/196/26/16Week NumberAverage Daily RidershipFY 07 FY 08 Streamline Projected Monthly Ridership Figures (Daytime Only) Ridership 2008 Rides per Day 2007 % Increase Jul-07 6,365 21 303 0 #DIV/0! Aug-07 8,732 23 380 149 154% Sep-07 8,939 19 470 231 103% Oct-07 12,277 23 534 270 98% Nov-07 12,003 21 572 279 105% Dec-07 11,072 20 554 291 90% Jan-08 15,256 22 693 389 78% Feb-08 16,016 21 763 536 42% Mar-08 14,005 21 667 450 48% Apr-08 14,772 22 671 450 49% May-08 11,395 21 543 341 59% Jun-08 10,288 21 490 293 67% Total 141,120 255 553 345 60% Near Term Funding Priorities Existing services $15,000 Saturday service $49,000* Sunday service $49,000 Fifth route $137,000 Longer hours $100,000 Higher frequency – peak hours $120,000 Airport service $103,000 Livingston (per MSU) Depends* Total $573,000+ * MSU has approved funding to start Saturday and Livingston service. Discussion continues to obtain ongoing commitment FY 2009 Budget (without MSU contribution) Costs $948,000 Revenue MDT / FTA Grant $513,131* ASMSU $117,000* City of Bozeman $72,430 Gallatin County $49,000 Bridger Bowl $9,000* City of Belgrade $8,000 Reach $63,600* United Way $28,000 Title III $20,000 Rider donations $20,000 Others $32,819 Total $933,000 *Streamline revenues State of Public Transportation in Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley Presented to the Bozeman City Commission June 9, 2008 67 ii System Information Human Resource Development Council of District IX, Inc. Streamline and Galavan 807 North Tracy Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715 (406) 587-2434 www.streamlinebus.com Contacts Lee Hazelbaker Director (406) 587-2434 Galavan@hrdc9.org Lisa Ballard, P.E. Bozeman Area Public Transportation Coordinator Current Transportation Solutions, Inc. (406) 581-4601 lballard@currenttransportation.com David Kack Streamline / Galavan Advisory Board Chair Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University P.O. Box 174250 Bozeman, MT 59717 (406) 994-7526 dkack@coe.montana.edu Streamline partners The new bus Past and future 68 1 Background Prior to 2006, Bozeman, a college town with 35,000 people, was the largest community in Montana without public transportation. Eleven miles away Belgrade (population 7,300) was the second largest community without transit. Bozeman, Montana: Gallatin County seat; home to Montana State University (MSU); gateway to Yellowstone National Park; nearby world-class skiing, fishing, and hiking; medical and shopping center for all of southwestern Montana. The region is attracting new residents, making it the fastest growing county in the state and among the fastest growing in the country. Its first public transportation, a trolley system that ran from 1892 to 1922, was built in a campaign to become the new state’s capital. Until World War II nearby Yellowstone had the second largest fleet of buses in the country. More recently, Galavan began senior transportation service in 1973, later adding service for people with disabilities. The Associated Students of Montana State University (ASMSU) made three attempts between 1977 and 1992 to provide bus service for the students. Its first attempt was on a trial basis. The second attempt in 1982 failed because of unreliable equipment. The 1992 attempt succeeded, with Bobcat Transit running until 2006. Streamline began operations in August 2006 by combining the fixed route (but seasonal) Bobcat Transit funded by ASMSU, with the demand responsive service of Galavan, operated by the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC). Streamline and Galavan serve Bozeman, Belgrade, Four Corners, and Bridger Bowl. These services include: ƒ Fixed Route / Deviated Route □ Daytime (Fixed Route) : FY 2008 projected 139,000 rides Trolleys on Main Street One of 380 Yellowstone buses, part of the second largest fleet in the country in 1924 The first number on the Montana plate represents the county rank in population when the state was formed. Gallatin County has been growing, recently becoming the 3rd largest. 69 2 □ Latenight (Deviated Route) : 8,000 rides □ Bridger Bowl (Deviated Route) : 2,008 rides ƒ Demand Response – Galavan : 23,400 rides ƒ Head Start : 4,500 rides ƒ Reach transportation for adults with disabilities: 33,000 rides Streamline put 6 new low-floor, bustle-back buses in fixed route service in August 2007. Galavan operates 2 minivans, 4 cutaways, and 1 bus meeting Headstart safety requirements. Reach’s 8 vehicles are used for sheltered workshop transportation, day time supportive employment transportation, and residential-based transportation. Streamline daytime service runs four routes. In FY 2008 Streamline added Latenight service and a weekend route to the Bridger Bowl ski area. Latenight runs on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, while the Bridger Bowl service runs during ski season. In FY 2009, the Montana Independent Living Project will start a pilot voucher project to support transportation needs outside of Streamline/Galavan’s operating hours and areas for people with disabilities. A large cross section of community rides the bus. A survey conducted in October 2007 by the students in MSU Civil Engineering (Course 480) found that the largest representation (55%) of riders consist of Montana State University students and faculty. Recent observations in December and January show a continued trend from the first year of service that Big Sky seasonal international employees are heavily dependent on Streamline and our sister service, Skyline. Other major users include seniors, people with low incomes, one-car households (by choice or necessity), visitors, and other choice riders. As the lead public transportation agency in the Gallatin Valley, HRDC coordinates with other organizations that need or provide transportation through the Transportation Advisory Committee. The committee works with charter services, the taxi company, local governments, the Montana Independent Living Project, Reach, Inc., and other human service agencies. We also coordinate with Skyline which connects Bozeman with Big Sky 45 miles to the south. 70 3 Accomplishments The community’s biggest accomplishment has been getting different groups of people to work together. We needed initial motivation from Montana Department of Transportation to get us going with our planning; we needed the new federal funding from SAFETEA-LU for implementation. We started Streamline with the money that was already being spent on transportation in the community. By pooling funds, each of our partners has increased the services available to its customers. As an example, ASMSU’s investment in daytime service results in three times the amount of service than was offered with Bobcat Transit. Before Streamline, when ASMSU paid for Bobcat Transit, the service that ran on hand-me-down 1970’s-era buses from Butte was theoretically open to the general public. Unfortunately, no one knew because the service had almost no funding for anything other than the direct bus operations. Today, for the same investment in daytime Streamline operations, ASMSU is spending 1/10th the contribution per student ride. Similar benefits exist for all other partners and services. Old and New Fixed-Route Daytime Weekday Service Old Bobcat Streamline FTA General Public No; non-accessible Yes; accessible with complimentary paratransit ASMSU annual investment $87,000 $87,000 Other funding (operating) $0 $453,000 Vehicles 2 old prison buses 6 new low-floor, attractive buses Amount of service 18 vehicle-hours per day, 9 months per year (3,400 hours/year) 42 vehicle-hours per day, year round (10,500 hours per year) Ridership 40/day, 7,800 per year 550/day, 139,000 per year Cost per ride $11.15 $3.90 ASMSU contribution per ride $11.15 $0.63 ASMSU contribution per MSU student rider $13.95 (assuming 80% of riders are students) $1.56 (40% student ridership from survey results) Ridership has far exceeded expectations. In our second year, the biggest portion of our service, our daytime service, is more than twice the projected ridership and 63% higher than our first year of service. The trends show more people ride in poor weather, and fewer people ride when school is out of session. Overall, in Fiscal Year 2008, the Streamline/ GALAVAN/ Headstart/ Reach partnership is projected to provide 220,800 rides, 77% higher than last year’s ridership. We estimate this will result in 388,850 pounds of net carbon savings and $113,750 of personal savings on fuel. 71 4 Streamline Fixed Route Daytime Ridership FY 07 and FY 08 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 7/27/167/308/138/279/109/2410/810/2211/511/1912/312/1712/311/141/282/112/253/103/244/74/215/55/196/26/16Week NumberAverage Daily RidershipFY 07 FY 08 Streamline Projected By introducing Latenight, the city and university law enforcement agencies have seen a reduction in DUI related incidents. This provides a huge impact on the safety of the other passengers on the streets of Bozeman during late hours of Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. An average DUI processing time is estimated to be 5 hours, and the total cost estimated for one such incident is around $5,000. By removing a single DUI related incident, this amount of public taxpayer’s money is saved and police officers are available for ensuring community safety. Needs During our annual planning process, the Transportation Advisory Committee identifies community needs. They are assessed by: ƒ Comparing existing services to residential and employment locations 0 200 400 600 800 Pre-Streamline Dec-06 Feb-08 Average Daily Ridership (Daytime Fixed Route) 72 5 ƒ Obtaining feedback from Streamline and GALAVAN users, including from email comments to Streamline web page ƒ Assessing ridership characteristics ƒ Obtaining driver feedback ƒ Obtaining feedback from the TAC, Streamline, and Public Transportation Advisory Boards This approach has identified the following gaps. At this time, adequate resources are not available to meet all needs. Service Gaps ƒ Buses do not go into Belgrade. More frequent commuter transportation from Bozeman to Belgrade is desired. ƒ There are unserved portions of Bozeman including: □ The northeast neighborhood north of the Interstate □ South of campus □ The business park southwest of campus hosting RightNow Technologies, one of the largest employers □ Durston and Peach □ The new growth areas in northwest □ The Reach, Inc. work center. ƒ Several high priority areas which do have service are underserved. □ The hospital is on a one-way loop, making one direction of the trip longer than he other. □ Northwest Bozeman north of Babcock □ East Main and the library are poorly connected to west side ƒ Higher service frequency ƒ More service to Bridger Bowl ƒ Livingston-Bozeman commuter service ƒ Longer hours ƒ More evening service ƒ Weekend service Information gaps ƒ Lack of coordinated communication between the service providers. Streamline and Skyline drivers communicate well. Schedules and web pages have been updated to provide adequate information regarding the other service. Coordination with Angel Line, Madison County, and West Yellowstone has been minimal in the last year. ƒ Lack of knowledge in the community regarding Streamline. 73 6 ƒ Difficulty among some potential users in understanding time tables and planning trips. Resource gaps ƒ There exists no central place of storage and maintenance for vehicles ƒ Lack of benches and bus shelters Goals Based on the needs assessment, the Bozeman Area Transportation Advisory Committee, the Streamline/GALAVAN Advisory Board, and the City/County Public Transportation Stakeholders Board established the following goals for FY 2009. Goal: Develop a customer service plan, resulting in improved customer satisfaction Our customers are our riders, our boards, the coordinating organizations, and the general public. Members of the Transportation Advisory Committee want all transportation services to be customer-centered and to have a high level of customer satisfaction. “A customer-centered organization is one that makes every effort to sense, serve, and satisfy the needs and wants of its clients and public within the constraints of its budget. One result of a customer-centered orientation is that the people who come in contact with such an organization report high personal satisfaction. They make such comments as, ‘This is the best church I ever belonged to.’ ‘My college was terrific – the professors really taught well and cared about the students.’ ‘I thing this hospital is fine – the nurses are cheerful, the food was good, and the room clean.’ These customers become the best advertisement for these institutions. Their goodwill and favorable word of mouth reach other ears and make it easy for the organization to attract and serve more people. These organizations are effective because they are customer oriented.”1 As identified by Peter Schauer in the 2007 Montana Transit Management Training course, a transportation service must have the following characteristics to have excellent customer service: ƒ Safe ƒ Easy to use ƒ Predictable ƒ Priced right ƒ Clean ƒ Sometimes fun 1 Kotler, Phillip and Alan Andreasen. Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 1996. p. 43. 74 7 In FY 2009 we will develop a customer service plan around these core areas that addresses service design, interactions between staff and the public, and public perception. All other goals also are related to improved customer satisfaction. Goal: Institutionalize Streamline operations In FY 2009 we will continue to solidify the base and institutionalize systems for Streamline Transit. We expect Streamline ridership when combined with GALAVAN to be in the top 3 in ridership among Montana’s rural systems. More normalized operations and communications with government and community organizations should lead to more ridership. Goal: Integrate transportation of Reach clients HRDC and Reach have coordinated with each other since the mid to late 80’s when HRDC was under contract to provide Reach transportation services. We will focus on coordination in two areas. First, we would like able Reach clients to use Streamline. We have checked routes and schedules to better accommodate Reach home and employment centers, and we will implement travel training program. Second, we will incorporate more Reach transportation services into Streamline/ GALAVAN operations. We have identified barriers to fully integrating Reach and Streamline/Galavan operations and have identified a framework that would be required to address all of these barriers. In FY 2009 we will work through this framework to determine if any additional consolidation can be accommodated. Goal: Improve marketing of Streamline, including development of a self-sustaining bus shelter program Marketing will include enhancements to the web site, public service announcements to increase awareness of the new service, and discussions with community organizations. Street furniture improves comfort for passengers and gives more presence to the system in the community. In Calendar Year 2007 Streamline worked with the City of Bozeman, Dowling Sandholm Architects, and the MSU College of Architecture to investigate the constraints and costs of installing bus shelters. In CY 2008 we will develop a bus shelter program that is funded by community contributions and sponsorships and meets the aesthetic requirements of the City of Bozeman. We will install our first bus shelters. We will make sure all stops are properly marked and post bus schedules at stops. Goal: Continue existing services In FY 2008 we worked with ASMSU, All Valley Cab, and the DUI Task Force to start Latenight bus service Thursday – Saturday. We worked with Bridger Bowl Board of Directors to incorporate wintertime Bridger Bowl transportation under the Streamline/GALAVAN umbrella. 75 8 We also continued our weekday daytime services and GALAVAN services. We will continue these services in FY 2009. Goal: Expand service within available budget [Note: current budget does not allow for expansions in FY 2009] The Transportation Advisory Committee has identified the following needed service improvements, ranked in the order of priority. Services will be implemented based on availability of funding. ƒ Weekend service ƒ Additional in-town route ƒ Longer weekday service ƒ More frequent service during peak hours ƒ Airport service A voucher program has also been recommended to be included as a request for New Freedom funds. Goal: Identify and implement appropriate technologies Low-cost technologies can help make Streamline and Galavan easier to use and more predictable. Before the end of FY 2009, Streamline services will be on Google Transit. This service will provide potential customers with a trip itinerary when the customer enters an origin, destination, and desired time to travel. We also will implement programs for tracking ridership, scheduling rides on Galavan, and coordination. We will investigate other technologies for traveler information, system management, coordination, and planning. Goal: Build travel training program In FY 2008 the Montana Independent Living Project (MILP) began a travel training program for people with disabilities. In FY 2009 MILP will build this program. Goal: Put Urban Transportation District on the ballot by 2009 As described in the original agreement to establish Streamline, HRDC intends to hand over operations of Streamline to an Urban Transportation District when it is established. We will begin working towards this goal this year. We will conduct community outreach and improve customer service in part to improve the probability of the ballot measure passing. Goal: Establish funding for a bus barn Streamline and GALAVAN have more than $1,000,000 of rolling stock. In FY 2007, GALAVAN was unable to work through the requirements of the FTA, the Bozeman School 76 9 District on whose land the bus barn is planned to be built, and the City of Bozeman building requirements to build a small bus barn. Streamline and GALAVAN need to establish funding for a larger facility to accommodate the needs of the larger fixed route system. We need to procure additional funding to meet these needs. Goal: Work with school districts to identify areas of coordination The City/County Public Transportation Stakeholders’ Board has asked Streamline to work with the school districts to identify any areas of coordination. Streamline should offer more independence to middle school and high school students, and there may be areas where the schools can save on transportation. Over the next year, we will work with the school districts to develop coordination opportunities. Federal Financing Appendix C includes a SAFETA-LU guide from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) that describes the transit provisions of the current 5-year transportation bill from a national perspective. This bill resulted in a major increase in funding for rural transit in Montana and across the country. Legislation is scheduled to expire in 2009 but will be extended until congress and the president pass the next transportation bill. While the nation faces an upcoming funding gap between the highway trust fund and needed expenditures, we expect continued federal funding for transit at the same or increased levels. 77 10 Highway Bill Allocations for Montana Transit (excluding capital program) $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearEstimated AllocationRural (5311) Total MT Transit Of the SAFETEA-LU transit programs, the Bozeman area qualifies for the following formula programs: Rural (Section 5311), Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (Section 5316) and New Freedoms (Section 5317). We also are eligible for funds from the discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities Program (Section 5309). We have seen our federal funding decrease slightly, but we expect federal funding to remain in this range or increase in upcoming years. Because we don’t expect the upcoming highway bill to reverse trends from current and previous federal legislation, we se no reason for federal funding to disappear. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary FTA’s allocation of funds to the state is increasing annually, but the Gallatin Valley’s allocation of federal funding through the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has decreased over the last three years: ƒ FY 2007: $547,000 ($547,000 Section 5311 rural transit) ƒ FY 2008: $535,000 ($400,000 Section 5311 funds; $135,000 Section 5316 funds) ƒ FY 2009: $513,000 ($513,151 Section 5311 funds; $13,444 Section 5317) 78 11 This decrease may be caused by MDT’s adjustment to the growth of transit in Montana (8 rural public transit systems in 2005 to 30 today). Also, MDT is allocating some 5311 funds to capital because of the decision by FTA to spend the entire national discretionary budget for FY 2007 in five urban areas. Prior to FY 2007, these funds were earmarked by Congress and were spread throughout the country. As expressed in the letter in Appendix C from the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) Executive Director, much of the country was upset over this decision and hope to see it change this year. Because of the increase in gas prices and our cut in federal funding, we are facing a small funding gap. For FY 2009, the expected combined costs for transportation in the region are $948,000. Expected revenues are $933,000. HRDC was awarded $513,151 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 Rural Program funds. Montana Independent Living Project was awarded $13,444 from the Section 5317 New Freedoms program. The FTA programs provide approximately 54% of costs. Galavan and Reach have been awarding funding for one minivan each, resulting in a total capital budget of $62,000. FTA grants will pay for 86% of these costs. The City of Bozeman is expected to contribute $72,430 based on the allocation from the senior transportation mill levy. All of this funding goes towards Galavan. Currently Bozeman contributes $0 towards Streamline operations. Priority of Near-term Service Improvements Streamline started operations with the existing community funds. ASMSU, the DUI Task Force, and Bridger Bowl have contributed to expand service. The community is grateful for the service it has, but the community needs to invest more to have an adequate level of service. Based on the FY 2009 Coordination Plan, the following top funding priorities have been set. Our initial goal for FY 2009 was to accomplish the top 4 items, but the MDT funding decision now leaves us trying to find the small amount of funding to keep existing services. 1. Keep existing services running. Cover the shortfall caused by lost federal funding and increased fuel costs. $15,000 2. Saturday service – 2 buses running 8 hours. Flexible routes will accommodate pre-arranged transportation for seniors and people with disabilities. $49,000 3. Sunday service – 2 buses running 8 hours. Flexible routes will accommodate pre-arranged transportation for seniors and people with disabilities. $49,000 4. Fifth route $137,000 5. Longer hours $100,000 6. Higher frequency during peak hours $120,000 7. Airport service $103,000 79 12 Governance and the Future Currently Streamline is governed by a non-profit organization, HRDC, the initial choice because of its history running Galavan. The City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade and Gallatin County each passed a resolution recognizing HRDC as the recipient of FTA funds to operate as an “Interim System.” The City of Bozeman’s resolution called for the “program” to be reviewed on or before October 1, 2008. In moving forward the community must choose between three governance options. Non-profit – HRDC can continue running Streamline and Galavan, thus making it the lead transportation provider in the valley. HRDC brings the experience and excellent community support. The biggest disadvantage of continued governance by HRDC is the inability for a non- profit to levy taxes that are needed to expand Streamline. Municipal - Montana law also allows for a municipal bus system such as Helena, Billings, and Butte. Of the three local governments (Belgrade, Bozeman, and Gallatin County), the City of Bozeman appears to be the best choice to operate Streamline. The advantage of this option is to ease coordination with the streets department, the parks department, the planning department, and the sustainability efforts. The biggest disadvantage of this option is the tendency to neglect service outside of Bozeman. Taxing authority is also unclearly defined in state code and may be limited. Urban Transportation District (UTD) - The final governing option is an Urban Transportation District (UTD). A district is formed by a vote of the people in the proposed area. Montana Code Annotated section 7-14-201 et. seq. describes the process of placement on the ballot by petition to the County Commission. Compared to the municipal bus company, the UTD has the advantage of being able to encompass the entire service area. It also has the advantage of the ability to levy taxes. Its biggest disadvantage is the effort and cost to get information to the public that allows them to make an informed decision whether to form the district. We need additional funding to expand service, which may lead to a change in governance. It is the opinion of the Streamline team that a governance change at this time must be coupled with a significant increase in funding. 80 Appendix A: Letters of Support 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Appendix B: Marketing 90 Recent Recognitions Swimming Upstream Kezia Vernon of the ASMSU Community Outreach Program was recognized with this 2008 award for her “enthusiastic advocacy for Latenight Streamline, and for ASMSU’s work in keeping late night ride services available for MSU students and now, community members.” Funded by the Gallatin County DUI Task Force, the award is a result of a collaboration between the Task Force, Alcohol Services and Drug Services of Gallatin County, and Gallatin Safe Kids Safe Communities. National Excellence in Regional Transportation Awards The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) recognized Streamline with its 2007 award for Excellence in Regional Transportation. Friend of Transit The Montana Transit Association (MTA) recognized Suzanne Winchester, a long-time Galavan and Streamline volunteer, with its 2008 Friend of Transit award. Suzanne was recognized for her long hours in the office and on the street helping with dispatch, talking with local businesses to sponsor Galavan, working at the two farmer’s markets to share information about Streamline, and organizing volunteers to collect tickets at the County Fair to pay for Galavan’s annual parking costs at the fairgrounds. Montana EcoStar The Montana Pollution Prevention Program and Governor Brian Schweitzer recognized Streamline in 2007 for pollution prevention with their EcoStar award. 91 Outreach Representatives from Streamline and Galvan talk to as many people as possible. We also participate in like-minded community events. Recent activities include: ƒ First ever Bozeman Dump the Pump day on June 19, 2008. ƒ Bozeman Mayor’s Climate Change Task Force participation, resulting in the recommendation of increased funding. ƒ Gallatin Earth Celebration participation, including providing extra weekend service (open to the public and advertised) to take people who had never used Streamline to clean-up trash and graffiti around town. ƒ Expanding Your Horizons for middle-school girls from across the state to encourage them to go into technical fields, including transportation. ƒ Headstart discussion of Streamline at evening event for parents and children ƒ Bozeman Business & Professional Women presentation. This group includes the mayor, several state legislators, and women from a cross-section of Bozeman. ƒ Chamber of Commerce presentation. ƒ Visitor’s bureau presentation. ƒ Catapooloza and other new student events at MSU. ƒ Participation in the Sweet Pea and Homecoming parades. ƒ Latenight bus service during the Cat-Griz game, the biggest sporting event in the state (and the highest Latenight ridership date). ƒ Special Latenight service for New Year’s Eve. ƒ Coordination with the Bozeman Beer Festival organizers (among others) to encourage use of Latenight. ƒ Information tables at farmer’s market. ƒ Participation in lunch at the senior center. ƒ City and County Commission presentations, which are broadcast on local cable and reported in the local paper. ƒ Presentations and participation at regional transportation meetings. ƒ And more… 92 Advertising Streamline uses mostly free media coverage, community word of mouth, its brochures, its web page, and its recognizable buses to get the word out about Bozeman’s bus system. Brochures are at all public, medical, and social service facilities. They are also available at the Chamber of Commerce, the airport, the Visitor’s Center, hotels, MSU, and any other organization that requests them. We have posters throughout downtown and MSU showing the schedule. On a quarterly basis we place ads in the local and MSU newspapers. This year we plan to develop radio and television Public Service Announcements. Joint newspaper advertisement for the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and the MSU Exponent. 93 This advertisement, funded by the DUI Task Force, is placed in bathrooms at restaurants and bars. 94 Appendix C: Federal Funding Information 95 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU A GUIDE TO TRANSIT-RELATED PROVISIONS 96 This guide provides a brief summary of key transit and related provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU), which authorizes federal transit and highway programs through Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on August 10, 2005 (Public Law 109-59). SAFETEA-LU builds on the success of two previous surface transportation authorization laws, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21; P.L. 105-178). Under it, the federal transit program structure remains largely the same, retaining formula programs that target federal investment to systems and communities based on need and capital investment programs that address special needs and projects. Nonetheless, as summarized in this guide, the new law makes a number of changes to existing programs and adds new ones. SAFETEA-LU represents a hard-fought victory for the public transportation industry and is consistent with the key reauthorization goals adopted by APTA’s Board of Directors in 2002: grow the program; maintain funding guarantees; and expedite program delivery. The new bill meets these goals. It: • Provides a record level of federal transit investment, $52.6 billion over 6 years, an increase of 46 percent over the amount guaranteed in TEA 21; • Increases annual guaranteed transit funding from a level of $7.2 billion in FY 2003 (the last year of TEA 21) to $10.3 billion in FY 2009; • Retains annual funding guarantees to ensure long-term funding stability; and • Improves program delivery. This outcome was possible because APTA member organizations worked together, and with other transportation interest groups, to make it happen. With great leadership provided by the APTA Executive Committee, Board of Directors and especially our legislative leadership – the Big 5: Rick Bacigalupo (Orange County), Mike Townes (Hampton Roads), Chris Boylan (New York), Dick Ruddell (Ft. Worth), and Alan Wulkan (Parsons Brinkerhoff) – coupled with APTA’s Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow (PT)2 resources we were able to carry that message forward more effectively than ever before. The results are described in this guide. William W. Millar President American Public Transportation Association September 2005 APTA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Richard A. White Chair Ronald L. Barnes First Vice Chair Paul P. Skoutelas Secretary-Treasurer George F. Dixon III Immediate Past Chair VICE CHAIRS Richard J. Bacigalupo Government Affairs Mattie P. Carter Transit Board Members Michael P. DePallo Rail Transit Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr.Management and Finance Fred M. Gilliam Bus and Paratransit Operations Kim R. Green Business Members John M. Inglish Research and Technology William D. Lochte Business Member-at-Large Gary W. McNeil Canadian Members Jeffrey A. Nelson Small Operations Joshua W. Shaw State Affairs David L. Turney Marketing Kathryn D. Waters Commuter and Intercity Rail Linda S. Watson Human Resources INTRODUCTION 97 1SAFETEA-LU Summary and Overview ..........................................................................................2 Transit Provisions of SAFETEA-LU........................................................................2 Planning.....................................................................................................................3 Planning Programs...................................................................................................3 Metropolitan Planning..............................................................................................3 Statewide Planning...................................................................................................3 Formula Programs...................................................................................................4 Urbanized Area Formula Program..........................................................................4 Small Transit Intensive Cities Tier...........................................................................4 Operating Assistance for Small UZAs.....................................................................4 Growing and High Density States Apportionment Factors ...................................5 Rural Formula Program...........................................................................................5 Transit on Indian Reservations................................................................................6 Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program..............................6 New Freedom Program............................................................................................6 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.........................................................7 Capital Investment Programs.................................................................................7 New Starts Program.................................................................................................7 Small Starts Program.............................................................................................10 Alternatives Analysis...............................................................................................11 Fixed Guideway Modernization Program..............................................................11 Bus and Bus Facilities Program............................................................................11 Research..................................................................................................................12 Other Programs......................................................................................................12 Clean Fuels Program..............................................................................................12 Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program.......................13 Project Management Oversight.............................................................................13 Other Transit-Related Provisions ........................................................................13 Non-Regulatory Notice and Comment Period.....................................................13 Charter Bus.............................................................................................................13 Employee Protective Arrangements.....................................................................14 Buy America............................................................................................................14 Bus Dealership Requirement ................................................................................14 Controlled Substances and Alcohol Misuse Testing............................................15 Eligible Capital Expenses.......................................................................................15 Use of Advertising and Social Service Contract Revenue Towards Local Match.........................................................................................................15 Transit Pass Commute Benefit..............................................................................16 Volumetric Excise Tax Credit for Alternative Fuels..............................................16 Selected Highway Provisions................................................................................16 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement...........................................16 Bus Axle Weight Exemption...................................................................................17 Ferry Boats and Terminals.....................................................................................17 Tolling Provisions....................................................................................................17 Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program......................18 National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission........18 National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission..........18 Funding Tables..................................................................................................1, 8, 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Over two reauthorization cycles, federal public transportation investment has more than doubled.Bi ions of Do ars 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 {$24.1 {$36 $52.6 {ISTEA TEA 21 SAFETEA-LU 98 PLANNING PROGRAMS, 49 U.S.C. 5305 A new section 5305 contains general provisions applicable to planning programs and continues the current division of planning authorization between Metropolitan Planning and Statewide Planning. The law requires the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration to issue final planning regulations by August 10, 2006. METROPOLITAN PLANNING, 49 U.S.C. 5303 All provisions for Metropolitan Planning are consolidated in a new section 5303. The requirement for separate transportation plans and transportation improvement programs is maintained. The Long Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program are to be updated every four years. Provisions regarding Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) are included in the metropolitan transportation planning section. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are encouraged to consult or coordinate with planning officials responsible for other types of planning activities affected by transportation. Safety and security are factors to be included in metropolitan planning. In developing a Long Range Transportation Plan, MPOs will be required to include transit agencies in making funding estimates; consult with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation; and have a participation plan that provides reasonable opportunities for all parties comments. TMAs must be certified every four years. Program updates of state or MPO plans shall reflect these changes by July 1, 2007. STATEWIDE PLANNING, 49 U.S.C. 5304 SAFETEA-LU consolidates statewide planning requirements in a new section 5304. States are allowed to enter into agreements for the purpose of planning cooperation and coordination for projects with multi-State implications. States must consider the economic vitality for rural areas as well as urbanized areas in statewide transportation planning. The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is to be updated every four years. Safety and security are factors to be included in statewide planning. 3SAFETEA-LU On July 29, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate approved by huge margins the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The bill provides $286.4 billion, including $52.6 billion for transit, through Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The President signed the bill into law (Public Law (P.L.) 109-59) on August 10, 2005. The President’s signature completed a legislative process that began in 2003, spanned two Congresses, and included two conferences and 12 extensions of TEA 21. The provisions of SAFETEA-LU specifically fund the authorization of transit and highway funds for FY 2005 through FY 2009; funding for FY 2004 was authorized by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV, (P.L. 108-280). All amounts in this document refer to the entire SAFETEA-LU period and include FY 2004 funds authorized by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV. Provisions of SAFETEA-LU generally take effect at the beginning of FY 2006 (October 1, 2005), but the law incorporates FY 2005 funding provided in FY 2005 Appropriations law and extensions of authorizing law. Before FY 2006, federal transit programs were funded with a mix of funds from both the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund, which under congressional budgeting rules resulted in a fast “spend down” rate for Mass Transit Account funds. Beginning in FY 2006, SAFETEA-LU funds the New Starts, Research and University Research Centers programs and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Administrative Expenses from the General Fund, and all other programs from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. As a result, Trust Fund spending under the transit program for the first time will be scored in the same way that spending is scored under the highway program, which has a significant and positive impact on the amount of funds that were able to be made available for the transit program under SAFETEA-LU. Finally, the legislation provides guaranteed annual increases in investment for all transit programs through the use of discretionary spending offsets and language similar to that included in TEA 21. 2 PlanningSummary and Overview Transit Provisions of SAFETEA-LU 99 200,000 in population under the 2000 Census may continue to use formula funds for operating expenses in FY 2005 at 100 percent of their FY 2002 apportionment, in FY 2006 at 50 percent of their FY 2002 apportionment, and in FY 2007 at 25 percent of their FY 2002 apportionment. GROWING AND HIGH DENSITY STATES FORMULA FACTORS, 49 U.S.C 5340 New Growing States and High Density States Formula Factors distribute funds to the urbanized area formula and rural formula programs under new factors. One-half of the funds are made available under the Growing States factors and are apportioned by a formula based on state population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent Census; amounts apportioned for each state are then distributed between urbanized areas and rural areas based on the ratio of urban/rural population within each state. The High Density States factors distribute the other half of the funds to states with population densities in excess of 370 persons per square mile. These funds are apportioned only to urbanized areas within those states. RURAL FORMULA PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5311 SAFETEA-LU significantly increases funding for the rural program of the transit formula program. A new formula tier based on land area is established to address the needs of low-density states (20 percent of section 5311 funds are distributed through this tier). Indian tribes are added as eligible recipients, and a portion of funding is set aside each year for Indian tribes - $8 million in FY 2006 and rising to $15 million by FY 2009. Rural transit systems receiving formula funds will be required to report data to the National Transit Database. The sliding scale federal match under the federal highway program for states with a high percentage of federal lands is applicable under the section 5311 program. The current practice of requiring the Secretary of Labor to use a special warranty for section 5333 employee protective arrangements (formerly known as section 13(c)) is now codified in law. The Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) is funded with a 2 percent set aside of the Rural Formula program rather than from the Research program as under current law. Up to 15 percent of such funds can be used by FTA to carry out national projects. Rural Formula program apportionments will include funds apportioned from the Growing States program. 5SAFETEA-LU Formula programs are those under which funds are apportioned by a formula specified in authorizing law. SAFETEA-LU moves several programs from other categories into a new “Formula and Bus Capital” category for authorization beginning in FY 2006. The new aggregation of programs is intended to allow all formula programs and the Bus Capital program to be funded from a single authorization from the Mass Transit Account. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5307 SAFETEA-LU preserves the existing formula program and its distribution factors, but creates several new programs or tiers to distribute a portion of the funds to urbanized areas (UZAs). It establishes a new tier for transit intensive urbanized areas with fewer than 200,000 in population and extends the authority to use formula funds for operating purposes in urbanized areas reclassified as being larger than 200,000 in population under the 2000 Census. These changes are described in detail in the following sections. Urbanized Area Formula Program apportionments will include funds apportioned under a new Growing States and High Density States program described below. The transit enhancement program will be administered by certification, and a grantee must submit an annual report of such projects to the FTA. SMALL TRANSIT INTENSIVE CITIES TIER, 49 U.S.C. 5336(j) SAFETEA-LU includes APTA’s proposal to create a tier in the Urbanized Area Formula program that would distribute funds to small UZAs with fewer than 200,000 population that provide transit service above a certain level. The new tier will be funded at 1 percent of all UZA formula funds annually beginning in FY 2006. The criteria are passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile; passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue hour; vehicle revenue miles per capita; vehicle revenue hours per capita; passenger miles traveled per capita; and passengers per capita. OPERATING ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL UZAS, 49 U.S.C. 5307(b)(2) Transit agencies in urbanized areas that grew from fewer than 200,000 in population under the 1990 Census to more than 4 Formula Programs 100 JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE (JARC) PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5316 The JARC program is changed to become a formula program rather than the existing competitive discretionary grants program. The formula is based on ratios involving the number of eligible low- income and welfare recipients with 60 percent of funds going to urban areas with more than 200,000 population, 20 percent for urban areas with fewer than 200,000 population, and 20 percent to rural areas. SAFETEA-LU contains report language directing the FTA to continue its practice of providing maximum flexibility to job access projects designed to meet the needs of individuals who are not effectively served by public transportation. Coordination is required between private, non-profit, and public transportation providers and other federal programs in the JARC program, the New Freedom Program, and the Elderly and Disabled program. Capital Investment programs provide funds for transit capital projects that meet specific criteria either by allocation where the project is named or by apportionment under a formula. Capital Investment Projects include the New Starts, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus and Bus Facilities programs. For authorization of amounts for SAFETEA-LU, however, Fixed Guideway Modernization and Bus and Bus Capital programs are included under authorizations for Formula and Bus Capital Programs beginning in FY 2006. NEW STARTS PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5309 SAFETEA-LU does not change the basic New Starts program or the current federal share of 80 percent. A new Small Starts Program is created for smaller projects with a federal share of less than $75 million (see below). The current three-level rating system for New Starts is replaced by a five-level system - High, Medium High, Medium, Medium-Low, Low. Economic development/land use is explicitly added to the project justification criteria. A grantee will be allowed to keep a portion of the cost savings when projects are completed under budget. A higher than requested federal share can be provided for projects which keep cost and ridership estimates within 10 percent of the forecasts 7SAFETEA-LU TRANSIT ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 49 U.S.C. 5311(c) Indian tribes are added as eligible recipients for rural formula funds, and a portion of rural formula funding is set aside each year for Indian tribes - $8 million in FY 2006 and rising to $15 million by FY 2009. ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5310 SAFETEA-LU maintains the current program for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. Because of strong interest in extending the authority to use section 5310 grant funds for operating assistance, a new seven-state pilot program is established for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to determine whether expanded authority to use up to 33 percent of the funds apportioned under section 5310 for operating costs improves services to elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. Four of the states in the pilot program are specified in law – Wisconsin, Alaska, Minnesota, and Oregon – along with three other states to be selected by the Secretary. NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5317 A new program called the New Freedom Program will provide formula funding for new transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by ADA to assist persons with disabilities. The New Freedom Program will be apportioned using a formula based on the disabled population in a state, with 60 percent of the funds apportioned to urbanized areas with populations larger than 200,000, 20 percent to states for use in urbanized areas of fewer than 200,000, and 20 percent to states for use in rural areas. Funds will be made available to transit systems and the states. The program contains language mandating coordination of transportation services with other federal human service programs. The law’s legislative history specifies that employee protective arrangements under section 5333 (formerly known as section 13(c)) do not apply to this new program. 6 Capital Investment Programs 101 9SAFETEA-LU8 PROGRAM FY 2004 (Millions) Total All Programs $7,309.0 Formula Programs Total 3,964.0 § 5307 Urbanized Area 3,445.9 § 5340 Growing States and High Density States —- § 5311 Rural Area 240.6 § 5310 Elderly and Disabled 90.7 § 5317 New Freedom —- § 5338(a)(2)(C) Alaska Railroad 4.8 § 5308 Clean Fuels Formula 50.0 § 3038 Over-the Road Bus 7.0 § 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute 125.0 § 5320 Alternative Transportation in Parks —- § 5335 Reports and Audits —- § 5339 Alternatives Analysis —- § 5309 Capital Investment Programs Total 3,137.5 Fixed-Guideway Modernization 1,206.5 New Starts Total 1,323.8 New Starts Less Than $75 Million —- New Starts $75 Million or More —- Bus and Bus Facilities 607.2 Planning Total 73.0 § 5305(d) Metropolitan Planning 60.4 § 5305(e) State Planning 12.6 Research Total 59.0 § 5311(b)(2) RTAP 5.3 § 5313(a) TCRP 8.3 § 5315 National Transit Inst. 4.0 § 5314 National Research 35.5 § 5506 University Centers 6.0 FTA Operations 75.5 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Six-Year (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) Total (Millions) $7,646.3 $8,622.9 $8,974.8 $9,730.9 $10,338.1 $52,622.0 4,123.9 4,671.7 4,860.3 5,268.1 5,596.6 28,484.6 3,593.2 3,466.7 3,606.2 3,910.8 4,160.4 22,183.2 —- 388.0 404.0 438.0 465.0 1,695.0 250.9 388.0 404.0 438.0 465.0 2,186.5 94.5 112.0 117.0 127.0 133.5 674.7 —- 78.0 81.0 87.5 92.5 339.0 4.8 —- —- —- —- 10 49.6 43.0 45.0 49.0 51.5 288.1 6.9 7.5 7.6 8.3 8.8 46.0 124.0 138.0 144.0 156.0 164.5 851.5 —- 22.0 23.0 25.0 26.9 96.9 —- 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14.0 —- 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 3,312.1 3,716.3 3,869.5 4,197.8 4,459.8 22,692.9 1,204.7 1,391.0 1,448.0 1,570.0 1,666.5 8,486.7 1,437.8 1,503.0 1,566.0 1,700.0 1,809.3 9,339.9 —- —- 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0 —- —- 1,366.0 1,500.0 1,609.3 4,475.3 669.6 822.3 855.5 927.8 984.0 4,866.3 72.4 95.0 99.0 107.0 113.5 559.9 59.9 78.6 81.9 88.5 93.9 463.2 12.5 16.4 17.1 18.5 19.6 96.8 60.6 58.0 61.0 65.5 69.8 373.8 5.2 In § 5311 In § 5311 In § 5311 In § 5311 10.5 8.2 9.0 9.3 9.6 10.0 54.3 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 25.2 37.2 37.7 40.4 44.6 48.5 243.9 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 40.0 77.4 82.0 85.0 92.5 98.5 510.9 SAFETEA-LU FEDERAL TRANSIT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION LEVELS 102 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, 49 U.S.C. 5339 A new Alternatives Analysis programs provides $25 million annually beginning in FY 2006 for new fixed guideway investment alternatives analyses. Earmarks are included for FY 2006 and FY 2007. FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5309 The Fixed Guideway Modernization program is unchanged. It is classified as a formula program for authorization in SAFETEA-LU but remains in the section 5309 Capital Investment program and is identified as section 5309(m)(1)(B) in FY 2005 and section 5309(m)(2)(B) beginning in FY 2006. In prior years it had been identified as section 5309(m)(1)(A). Fixed Guideway Modernization apportionment factors in section 5337 are not changed. BUS AND BUS FACILITIES PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities is classified as a formula program for authorization in SAFETEA-LU but remains in the section 5309 Capital Investment program and is identified as section 5309(m)(1)(C) in FY 2005 and section 5309(m)(2)(C) beginning in FY 2006. SAFETEA-LU makes few changes to the program, but provides significant increases in funding. Some 600 earmarks are included in this section; these earmarks cover about half of the Bus and Bus Facilities program resources in each fiscal year through FY 2009. A new intermodal facilities program is established with a $35 million annual set aside from the discretionary bus program. The intercity portion of intermodal terminals is eligible for funding under this program if the facility serves as a connector to public transportation. In addition, $10 million is now available annually under the Bus Program for ferry boats or related terminals with the funds earmarked for specific projects. 11SAFETEA-LU used as basis for establishing locally preferred alternative. FTA is to implement New Start Program changes by a rulemaking. There is a pilot program to demonstrate the benefits of public/private partnerships. The FTA annually is to issue a contractor performance assessment report to analyze the consistency and accuracy of cost and ridership estimates made by contractors developing major capital investments. The FTA may take into consideration extenuating factors outside the control of a contractor in making its evaluations. The New Starts program is identified as section 5309(m)(1)(A) in FY 2005 and section 5309(m)(2)(A) beginning in FY 2006. In prior years it had been identified as section 5309(m)(1)(B). The law includes four categories of earmarks: specific annual funding levels for projects that have Full Funding Grant Agreements; a listing without any funding amounts for projects authorized for final design and construction grants; a listing without any funding amounts for projects authorized for preliminary engineering grants; and a listing with maximum amounts during the SAFETEA-LU period for additional projects not categorized by their status. Also under the New Starts program, $20 million is made available annually for ferry boats or related facilities for projects in Alaska and Hawaii. SMALL STARTS PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5309(e) A new “Small Starts” (Capital Investment Grants Less Than $75,000,000) program would provide funding for smaller projects with a federal New Starts share of less than $75 million, including streetcar, trolley, bus rapid transit (if a substantial portion of the project operates in a separate right of way in a defined corridor dedicated for public transit use during peak hours or it has other characteristics of a fixed guideway system), and commuter rail projects. Small Starts projects may not total more than $250 million. Simplified procedures and criteria apply to the program. The program will be funded with a $200 million takedown from the New Starts apportionment annually beginning in FY 2007. 10 103 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5320 SAFETEA-LU establishes a new program to develop public transportation in National Parks, with the goal of improving mobility and reducing congestion and pollution. The Departments of Transportation and Interior will work cooperatively to develop and select capital or planning projects. Employee protective arrangements under section 5333 (formerly known as section 13(c)) do not apply to this new program. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT (PMO), 49 U.S.C. 5327 The takedown for Project Management Oversight is increased to 0.75 percent for section 5307 UZA Formula funds and to 1.0 percent for section 5309 Capital Investment programs. New 0.5 percent PMO takedowns will apply to section 5305 Planning, section 5310 Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, and section 5320 Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands programs. The 0.5 percent PMO takedown for section 5311 Rural funds remains the same. “Safety and security management” are added to project management and oversight review requirements. NON-REGULATORY NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIOD, 49 U.S.C. 5334 (l) The law adds a new section that requires FTA to subject non-regulatory substantive policy statements that impose a binding obligation on recipients to a 60-day public review notice and comment period. CHARTER BUS, 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) SAFETEA-LU permits the partial withholding of federal funds by the FTA in the case of a continuing pattern of violations of the charter or school bus law and regulations. Report language accompanying the bill calls for a negotiated rulemaking by the FTA to consider ways to improve the charter bus complaint and appeals process; improve the administration and enforcement of the charter bus regulation, including use of the internet to help communications; and to 13SAFETEA-LU The research programs are generally unchanged. The Transit Cooperative Research Program grows from its current fixed amount of $8.2 million a year to $10 million in FY 2009. A number of studies and entities are funded from the national research program: a National Academy of Sciences study of 38 transit systems ability to accommodate evacuation in times of emergency; Center for Transit Oriented Development at $1 million a year; transportation equity research program to assess transportation impacts on transit dependent at $1 million a year; transit career ladder training program at $1 million a year; pilot program for remote infrared audible signs $500,000 per year; hydrogen fuel cell shuttle deployment demonstration project at $800,000 each year for two years; human services transportation coordination at $1.6 million per year; Portland streetcar prototype deployment at $1 million per year; public transportation participation pilot program at $1 million a year; transportation infrastructure and logistics research at $500,000 a year for University of Alabama at Huntsville; National Bus Rapid Transit Institute at $1.75 million a year for University of South Florida; ITS application at $400,000 for Northern Kentucky University; ITS pilot project at $465,000 for Ohio State; regional public safety training center at $500,000 a year for Lehigh-Carbon Community College; transit security training facility at $750,000 for Chester Community College; Small Urban and Rural Transit Center $800,000 per year at North Dakota State University; advanced technology BRT at $500,000 per year for Connecticut project; New Haven fuel cell-powered bus research at approximately $500,000 a year; Center for Advanced Transportation Initiatives at approximately $500,000 a year at Rutgers; New Jersey Institute of Technology TELUS program at approximately $500,000 a year; Southern California regional transit training consortium pilot program at $540,000 a year. CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM, 49 U.S.C. 5308 The Clean Fuels grant program is reauthorized with some modifications. Grants would be provided for the purchase of clean fuels buses, including clean diesel vehicles (up to 25 percent of grants annually), in certain non-attainment areas and areas trying to maintain compliance with clean air standards. Grants are discretionary. 12 Research Other Programs Other Transit- Related Programs 104 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL MISUSE TESTING, 49 U.S.C. 5331 The law provides flexibility to permit a transit system to comply with one DOT modal drug and alcohol testing program rather than having to comply separately with different DOT modal drug and alcohol testing programs. ELIGIBLE CAPITAL EXPENSES, 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1) The definition of an eligible capital project for mass transportation improvement is expanded by adding construction, renovation, and improvement of intercity bus and intercity rail stations and terminals. New eligible capital project categories are added: crime prevention and security including security and emergency response plans, chemical and biological agent detection, emergency response drills, and security training for employees; establishing a debt service reserve; and mobility management. Mobility management is described as “projects for improving coordination among public transportation and other transportation service providers”, and could include, among other things, the employment of personnel to coordinate the full array of transportation options through a clearinghouse function. Further, a transit system may allow the incidental use of federally funded alternative fueling facilities and equipment by nontransit public entities and private entities so long as funds earned are used for transit purposes. USE OF ADVERTISING AND SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACT REVENUE TOWARDS LOCAL MATCH The legislation allows additional funds to be used for the local match. Advertising and concession revenues can be used to match Urbanized Area Formula funds. Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to a department or agency of the Government (other than the Department of Transportation) that are eligible to be expended for transportation can be used to match Elderly and Disabled, Rural, JARC, and New Freedom grants. Funds from section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) can be used to match Urbanized Area Formula, Elderly and Disabled, Rural, JARC, and New Freedom grants. Amounts received under a service agreement with a state or local social service agency or private social service organization can be used to match Elderly and Disabled, Rural, JARC, and New Freedom grants. Proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds can be used to match Urbanized Area Formula and Capital Investment grants for capital projects. 15SAFETEA-LU consider whether there are potential limited conditions under which public transit agencies can provide community-based charter services directly to local governments and private non-profit agencies that would not otherwise be served in a cost-effective manner by private operators. Under a negotiated rulemaking, a balanced group representing public and private interests would meet with a representative of the FTA as part of a federally chartered advisory committee to negotiate the text of a proposed rule. Meetings are to be announced in the Federal Register and are open to the general public. If the group cannot agree on the text of a proposed rule, FTA would draft it. EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS, 49 U.S.C 5333 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SECTION 13(c)) Employee protective arrangements, formerly known as section “13(c),” do not apply to two new programs created under the bill, the New Freedom and Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Programs. The bill codifies the Department of Labor (DOL) “Las Vegas” decision relating to contractor-to-contractor issues in cases involving buses as embodied in DOL letters dated September 21 and November 7, 1994. Further, the administrative special warranty for section 5311 programs is now codified in law and grants for purchase of like-kind equipment do not have to be referred to DOL prior to certification. BUY AMERICA, 49 U.S.C. 5323(j) Language is included in SAFETEA-LU requiring FTA to conduct a rulemaking on the Buy America program to clarify that the microprocessor waiver is limited to computers and similar devices; to define end product to ensure that major systems procurements are not used to circumvent Buy America and that such definition include a list of representative items subject to the Buy America requirements; provide for non-availability waivers after contract award; and to clarify that it is the certification submitted with a final offer that applies to a negotiated procurement. BUS DEALERSHIP REQUIREMENT, 49 U.S.C. 5325(i) The law provides that no state law requiring buses to be purchased through in-State dealers shall apply to vehicles purchased with a grant under the federal transit program. 14 105 impact of the projects on air quality and congestion levels; and ensure the effective implementation of the program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to publish a list of approved diesel retrofit technologies and the emission reduction effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technologies. BUS AXLE WEIGHT EXEMPTION, SECTION 1023(h)(1) OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 The current exemption from axle-weight limitations for transit buses and over-the-road buses is extended through September 30, 2009. FERRY BOATS AND TERMINALS, 23 U.S.C. 149 A new program for the construction of ferry boats and terminals is established, funded at $38 million in FY 2005 and increasing annually to $67 million by FY 2009. Additional sums as may be necessary are provided. A national ferry database will be established. Included in program priorities are ferries that carry the greatest number of passengers in passenger-only service. TOLLING PROVISIONS, SECTION 1604 OF SAFETEA-LU AND 23 U.S.C. 166 An express lane demonstration program is established which permits excess revenues to be used for transit purposes eligible under Title 49. SAFETEA-LU gives states more flexibility to use road pricing strategies as a congestion management and transportation finance tool. States are given latitude in the operation of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, allowing priority consideration for use of toll revenues for alternatives (such as transit) to single occupant vehicles. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program is continued and enhanced along with several other pilot and demonstration programs to encourage congestion strategies aimed at air quality, energy conservation and efficiency. New provisions allow state/local governments expanded use of “toll credits” for local match for federal highway and transit projects - revenues from toll facilities may be counted as local matching funds regardless of whether or not federal funds were or are used for the toll facility. 17SAFETEA-LU TRANSIT PASS COMMUTE BENEFIT, SECTION 3049 OF SAFETEA-LU The law preserves the current limitation for qualified transportation fringe benefits for transit and vanpools at $105 per month (with indexing for inflation). It also codifies Executive Order #13150 which requires federal agencies in the Washington, D.C. National Capital Region to provide employees with tax-free transit benefits to cover commuting costs up to the maximum allowed by law. It extends benefits, beyond those provided in the Executive Order, to federal employees in the National Capital Region who work for the legislative and judicial branches or for independent agencies. VOLUMETRIC EXCISE TAX CREDIT FOR ALTERNATIVE FUELS, SECTION 11113 OF TITLE XI OF SAFETEA-LU Two new excise tax credits are made available under SAFTEA-LU’s tax title for alternative fuels and alternative fuel mixtures used in highway-use vehicles. The law provides a 50 cent per gallon tax credit for alternative fuel or gasoline gallon equivalents for non liquid alternative fuels. While this tax credit would be provided to the producer of such fuels, some of the benefit of the credit may accrue to the users, including transit and other municipal agencies that are not taxpaying entities. The following selected sections of the highway provisions are included because of their significance to the federal transit program but represent only a small portion of the highway provisions in SAFETEA-LU. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CMAQ), 23 U.S.C. 149 A new requirement is established that states and MPOs give priority consideration to projects and programs for diesel retrofits, other cost-effective emission reduction activities, and cost-effective congestion mitigation activities that provide air quality benefits. Also established is a requirement to evaluate and assess a representative sample of CMAQ projects to determine the direct and indirect 16 Selected Highway Provisions 106 TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY, AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM, SECTION 1117 OF SAFETEA-LU Funding for the Federal Highway Administration Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) is increased from the current $25 million annual amount to a new annual level of $61 million. Transit and highway projects that enhance transit- oriented development are eligible, along with other broad categories of projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system and reduce its impacts on the environment. NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION, SECTION 1909 OF TITLE I OF SAFETEA-LU A new commission will be created to study and report on the current condition and future needs of the surface transportation system, and potential funding to meet such needs. It specifically identifies public transportation infrastructure and facilities as part of the surface transportation system to be considered, and directs the commission to consider needs related to emergency preparedness and evacuation using the system and alternatives to address environmental concerns associated with the system. NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING COMMISSION, SECTION 1142 OF TITLE XI OF SAFETEA-LU Another commission will be created to complete a study of the Highway Trust Fund revenues and the impacts of these revenues for future highway and transit needs. Among the considerations will be alternative approaches to generating revenues for the Highway Trust Fund. 18 VISION Be the leading force in advancing public transportation. MISSION To strengthen and improve public transportation, APTA serves and leads its diverse membership through advocacy, innovation, and information sharing. 107 August 17, 2007 Ms. Mary E. Peters Secretary of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Secretary Peters: I write today with a decidedly mixed reaction to two recent actions by the United States Department of Transportation. While the Community Transportation Association of America and its more than 4,000 organizational and individual members is exceedingly gratified by the decision to fully fund public and community transit recovery efforts along the Gulf Coast, we are equally disturbed by the decision to spend so much in discretionary capital investment in a mere five communities through the Urban Partnership program. We certainly want to express our profound appreciation for the DOT and FTA effort relative to Gulf Coast Transit Funding. This action provides important help and does justice to many of the communities damaged by Katrina and the difficult situation caused by its aftermath. The implementation of the waiver provisions we fought to create is also welcome news and we know will be a tremendous help. I have spoken with our colleagues at Coast Transit in Gulfport, Mississippi and I know how important this investment is to them. It will make a real and positive difference. Thank you. On the allocation of discretionary capital resources announced yesterday there will be disappointment from many of our members who responded to the FTA notice of funds that were available. This disappointment is exacerbated by the fact that FTA staff spent the better part of the past six months advising many of our members on how to properly submit for its competitive capital discretionary program, a program which now seems never to have been part of DOT’s plans. We understand the desire to make an impact on congestion — an issue we agree is vitally important. But other needs are important, too. We had hopes that this discretionary effort would be more balanced and address the needs of all parts of our national transit network, and not five. Congestion is a national issue. More specifically, the lack of any allocation for our rural and small urban areas is very troubling considering the large and continuing unmet transit need in these areas. Despite the gains in transit since SAFETEA-LU there is still great differences between areas that the discretionary program can balance. In the last several years we have made significant progress in providing equity in our transit programs by bring new services to all parts of our country. We are building a national transit network. We regret DOT and FTA could not do that in this instance. Moving forward, I know that we can work together to produce more results like the Gulf Coast assistance package and we can look toward to continuing to work with DOT and FTA to find other resources for the rest of the transit community. I still believe we are best served by a system that recognizes the needs of all communities regardless of size. Thanks again for your time and help. Sincerely, Dale J. Marsico, CCTM Executive Director CTAA 108