Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Public Transit
|
TO: |
Dave Corliss, Interim City Manager
|
|
FROM: |
Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator
|
|
CC: |
Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager
|
|
Date: |
April 18, 2007
|
|
RE: |
Vehicle Replacement Plan for Transit
|
Below is information you requested regarding the Public Transit Department’s updated Vehicle Replacement Plan for regular fixed-route T service and T Lift paratransit service fleet, as well as City-owned vehicles used to operate the University of Kansas Park and Ride shuttle service.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
VEHICLE INVENTORY
Currently the City owns thirty-one transit vehicles and one transit department administrative vehicle. Of the thirty-one vehicles, ten vehicles are used to operate “T” service with two vehicles serving as spares to meet the Federal Transit Administration’s spare ratio requirement of 20%. These vehicles were all acquired in the Fall of 2001 from Creative Bus Sales. The El Dorado National/Thor Transmark RE-29 is a lightweight, medium-to-heavy duty rear engine transit bus approximately 30 feet in length conforming to FMVSS and ADA regulations. These buses have a seating capacity for 25 passengers. If the two wheelchair securements are used, then the seating capacity is lowered to 19. These buses are Altoona tested with a service life of ten years or 350,000 miles. The City paid $205,975 to acquire each of these vehicles in September and October 2001 for a total cost of $2,471,700. These vehicles are assigned City identification numbers 718 – 729.
In addition, ten more vehicles are used to operate demand-response paratransit “T-Lift” service with 4 vehicles serving as spares. The age, make, and passenger capacities of these vehicles vary. The service-life of these vehicles is 5 years or 100,000 miles. The oldest vehicle in the fleet is a 1999 Ford E-Super Duty 2500 from Diamond Coach (Bus #657) acquired in October 2001 for $49,706. The newest vehicles are five 2004 Ford PT2000 (Bus #’s 738-742) acquired in June 2004 from Diamond Coach for $39,478 each. The remaining fleet is made up of four 2001 Chevy 3500 buses acquired in June 2001 from Diamond Coach at a cost of $43,164 each and four 2002 Chevy VIP2200 buses acquired in May 2002 from Diamond Coach at an acquisition cost of $43,537 each. The passenger seating capacity varies on each bus. Some buses (#730 - 733) have a seating capacity of 10 with 3 wheelchair securements. Bus # 657 has a seating capacity of 9 with 3 wheelchair securements. All the other buses in the fleet (#734 – 742) have a seating capacity of 10 with 2 wheelchair securements.
Furthermore, the remaining five buses owned by the City are used to operate the University of Kansas (KU) West Campus Park and Ride facility. These buses acquired in May 2006 are Optima Opus 34 ft., low-floor, heavy-duty, ADA-accessible vehicles. The cost to acquire these vehicles was $269,601 each for a total of $1,348,005. The buses have a seating capacity of 25 passengers with 2 wheelchair securements. The service life mandated by the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) for these vehicles is 12 years and 500,000 miles. KDOT requires both age and mileage must be reached before these vehicles can be replaced. The bus identification numbers assigned are #301-305.
Finally, the transit department also has one vehicle it uses to assist with administration and operation of the transit system. The vehicle is a Ford Taurus that was acquired in 2000 at a cost of $15,091 and was assigned vehicle identification number 843. For the sake of this memo, the replacement of this vehicle is not discussed. The Transit Department plans on keeping this vehicle for the foreseeable future and would not look to replace the vehicle until it reached at least 50,000 miles.
Fixed-route and paratransit buses are operated and maintained through a contract with MV Transportation, Inc., and buses used for the KU Park and Ride service are operated and maintained through a contract with the University.
The entire City Transit Fleet is 100% ADA-accessible or wheelchair lift equipped.
Below is Table A that lists vehicle bus number, service type, make, model number, acquisition date, and current total mileage through March 2007.
Table A:
|
City Bus #
|
Service Type |
Make |
Model Number |
Acquisition Date |
Total Mileage through 3/31/07 |
|
718 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/5/01 |
267,156 |
|
719 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/5/01 |
288,611 |
|
720 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/21/01 |
264,583 |
|
721 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/21/01 |
259,690 |
|
722 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/21/01 |
281,495 |
|
723 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/21/01 |
242,524 |
|
724 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
9/24/01 |
271,441 |
|
725 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
10/15/01 |
265,304 |
|
726 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
10/20/01 |
279,425 |
|
727 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
10/23/01 |
272,667 |
|
728 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
10/29/01 |
271,222 |
|
729 |
Fixed-Route |
El Dorado/Thor |
2002 Transmark RE29 |
10/25/01 |
261,193 |
|
657 |
Paratransit |
Ford |
E-Super Duty Diamond 2500 |
10/19/99 |
101,904 |
|
730 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
3500 Diamond |
5/30/01 |
124,115 |
|
731 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
3500 Diamond |
6/1/01 |
136,523 |
|
732 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
3500 Diamond |
6/15/01 |
126,598 |
|
733 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
3500 Diamond |
6/26/01 |
143,696 |
|
734 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
VIP2200 Diamond |
5/21/02 |
136,250 |
|
735 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
VIP2200 Diamond |
5/21/02 |
119,656 |
|
736 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
VIP2200 Diamond |
5/21/02 |
127,624 |
|
737 |
Paratransit |
Chevy |
VIP2200 Diamond |
5/21/02 |
110,682 |
|
738 |
Paratransit |
Ford |
PT2000 Diamond |
6/24/04 |
70,864 |
|
739 |
Paratransit |
Ford |
PT2000 Diamond |
6/24/04 |
75,318 |
|
740 |
Paratransit |
Ford |
PT2000 Diamond |
6/30/04 |
76,666 |
|
741 |
Paratransit |
Ford |
PT2000 Diamond |
6/30/04 |
76,025 |
|
742 |
Paratransit |
Ford |
PT2000 Diamond |
6/29/04 |
76,634 |
|
301 |
Park & Ride |
Optima |
Opus 34 |
5/11/06 |
13,985 |
|
302 |
Park & Ride |
Optima |
Opus 34 |
5/11/06 |
10,585 |
|
303 |
Park & Ride |
Optima |
Opus 34 |
5/13/06 |
11,296 |
|
304 |
Park & Ride |
Optima |
Opus 34 |
5/15/06 |
14,479 |
|
305 |
Park & Ride |
Optima |
Opus 34 |
5/17/06 |
11,525 |
|
843 |
Transit Dept |
Ford |
2000 Taurus |
5/31/00 |
21,147 |
CURRENT VEHICLE USE AND SERVICE LIFE
Each Fixed-Route bus averages 4,200 miles a month or approximately 50,000 miles annually. Each Paratransit bus averages 1,430 miles a month or approximately 20,000 miles annually.
Based on current operating hours, the fixed-route buses will reach their manufacturer’s useful service life requirements of 350,000 miles after 7 years of service, or in 2008.
The average service life of paratransit vehicles in terms of years in reaching 100,000 miles is 5 years. FTA and KDOT also consider 100,000 miles or 5 years to be the service life of these vehicles. In terms of mileage, nine of the fourteen paratransit vehicles have reached their useful service life. Five of the fourteen vehicles have reached their useful service life in age.
OPERATING VEHICLES PAST THEIR USEFUL SERVICE LIVES
The City can opt to operate buses past their manufacturer useful service lives. However, that is not a recommended option, since the City assumes a greater risk of a decrease in reliability of service caused by more frequent mechanical failure and downtime of vehicles for repair. In addition, preventative maintenance costs will increase substantially due to manufacturer warranties expiring and the increased cost of repairs for major engine and drive train component failure. Preventative maintenance costs are included in the City’s existing contract with MV Transportation. However, the current contract with MV Transportation expires at the end of December 2008 at the time when the City’s entire fixed-route fleet will be reaching its useful service life in terms of mileage. The pricing of any future operating contract would be affected by the age and condition of the fleet that would be operated. If the existing fleet remains in operation, then the contract pricing will reflect the increased cost of maintenance, preventative maintenance activities, and fuel (fuel efficiency tends to diminish with aging vehicles).
RECOMMENDED PARATRANSIT VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN
The capital replacement plan for the existing paratransit fleet would be handled differently. Last year the Transit Department budgeted available State of Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program funding from prior years to replace six (6) of nine (9) paratransit vehicles that have already reached their useful service life requirements. In November 2006, the City Commission authorized staff to replace six vehicles. The vehicles to be replaced are Bus #: 657, 730, 731, 732, 733, and 737 since these are the oldest in the fleet and have reached their manufacturer useful service lives. Bus 737 is also being replaced since it has major structural repair issues that are too cost prohibitive to repair to justify keeping the vehicle in revenue service.
Later this month three (3) of the six (6) vehicles ordered from Kansas Truck Equipment Company, Inc. off of the Kansas Department of Transportation Vehicle Bid in November will be delivered and will be ready to put into revenue service. The three (3) other vehicles ordered are currently being manufactured and should be delivered in May.
The vehicles ordered are FY 2007 Ford E-450, El Dorado Areotech gasoline powered small transit vehicles configured to hold 10 passengers and three (3) wheelchairs. The unit cost per vehicle was $51,726 for a total cost of $310,356. These will be the first gasoline powered vehicles introduced into the fleet. The reason why gasoline powered engines were chosen had to do with engine reliability issues due to problems with Ford’s 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine. In addition, the cost to operate played a factor since diesel fuel costs now are hirer than the cost of gasoline.
Three (3) of the six (6) paratransit vehicles will be kept by the City upon replacement. Two (2) of the vehicles kept will be converted to Road Supervisor vehicles that the City’s Transportation Service Contractor can utilize. The contractor will be fully responsible for the cost of operating, maintaining and insuring City owned-vehicles. Once these vehicles are no longer functional, they will be sold. One (1) other vehicle being replaced will be transferred from the Transit Department to the Public Works Department where it will be operated, maintained and stored. The City will then be able to utilize this vehicle for special events or other activities that the City deems necessary since the Transit Department is prohibited by Federal Charter Regulations from providing such service. The other three (3) vehicles to be replaced will be sold via bid. Recently, the Douglas County Jail inquired about the feasibility of acquiring one of the vehicles to utilize once the Transit Department takes it out of revenue service.
The City should replace all paratransit vehicles thereafter, by pursuing a replacement schedule of acquiring three (3) new vehicles annually to ensure that the entire current paratransit fleet of fourteen (14) vehicles is constantly and evenly rotated over a five-year period. Staff plans to budget available CTP funds on an annual basis to acquire three (3) vehicles annually since the acquisition of the vehicles would be 100% state funded. Furthermore, as an additional benefit if structured correctly, these vehicle procurements can be included in Federal transit grant applications. The benefit would be for the City to utilize the local cost or value to acquire these vehicles as local “in-kind” match for future Federal dollars received and used for capital purposes. This reduces the City’s financial burden in finding limited local matching dollars for Federal funds to utilize for capital purposes.
To eliminate time and the hassle of developing vehicle bid specifications annually, the City should continue to acquire paratransit vehicles through the KDOT vehicle bid. The City is not required to purchase vehicles through state contract. The Transit Department, if it deems necessary, may conduct a separate procurement if vehicle models are limited or if the models available are not consistent with City needs.
The City should keep in mind that if it decides to expand service caused by rising demand, additional funding resources will need to be identified to acquire more vehicles.
Lastly, the City should keep in mind that the State of Kansas Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) is scheduled to expire in FY09 (State Fiscal Year). City officials should continue to work closely with elected State representatives to insure this funding source is renewed since it is paying 100% of paratransit vehicle replacement costs as well as covering various other capital and operating expenses incurred by the transit system. If CTP in not renewed, or funded at least at current levels, the City will need to identify and dedicate additional resources to cover paratransit vehicle replacement costs.
Table B below outlines a replacement schedule by City fiscal year.
Table B:
|
FY07 |
FY08 |
FY09 |
FY10 |
FY11 |
|
6 Buses |
3 Buses |
3 Buses |
3 Buses |
3 Buses |
|
$310,356
|
$162,225
|
$167,100
|
$172,100
|
$177,260
|
Note: Assumes 3% annual PPI increase.
RECOMMENDED FUTURE FIXED-ROUTE VEHICLE TYPE
Low-floor buses are increasingly popular throughout the transit industry since they are much easier to get on and off than standard buses for passengers with disabilities and for elderly riders who may have difficulty climbing stairs. The City should look at replacing its current fixed-route fleet with this type of model bus. In addition, since these vehicles are currently operated 14 hours per day, 6 days per week, all future fixed-route buses acquired should be heavy-duty. The manufacturer specified useful service life of a heavy-duty bus is 12 years or 500,000 miles.
The size of vehicles seems to be of particular interest to some citizens who view larger vehicles implemented by the transit system negatively. The City needs to factor when making vehicle acquisitions the length of time vehicles will be put into service when determining the size of vehicles to be utilized. With ridership steadily growing, the City should ensure that the vehicles acquired have sufficient seating capacity to avoid standing, especially on longer trips, in order to maintain a high level of service and comfort to the passengers not only the year the vehicle is replaced but 10 years in the future when the vehicle is still in operation. At this time, a 30ft. bus would be sufficient to meet the City’s needs unless through transit service coordination with the University of Kansas more students, faculty and staff utilize City transit service which may impact capacity levels off vehicles on some routes.
Also, the Transit Department has found that vehicles that are constructed that are less than 30ft. in length are manufactured completed differently than larger vehicles 30ft in length or greater. These smaller transit vehicles tend to be van conversions with cut-away chasis that are not designed for heavy-duty transit use. These vehicles tend to be light or medium duty vehicles with a maximum useful-service life of 7 years and 250,000 miles. The acquisition price will be less costly, however, the quality and durability of the vehicles will not be comparable to heavy-duty buses. If the City prefers smaller transit vehicles it needs to be prepared to replace vehicles more often and deal with vehicle reliability issues that impact the quality of service provided to the citizens of Lawrence. It is always important to keep in mind that if transit service is not reliable, people will not utilize it.
As part of the scope of work for the Coordinated Transit Development Plan completed last year by the City and University of Kansas, the consultant made recommendations about the size and type of vehicles that should be used by the City and University to provide transit services in the community. The consultant did not recommend the use of a mixed-fleet for the City. Part of his reasoning was for a small transit system, added training needs, multiple or more elaborate RFPs, larger parts inventories, absence of any cost efficiencies, and reduced flexibility in assigning vehicles to routes in his opinion outweighed any benefits that could be achieved through use of a mixed-fleet.
In addition, based on extensive research conducted by the Transit Department over the past year about utilizing transit vehicles that operate on alternative energy technology such as Electric Hybrid, Compressed Natural Gas or Liquefied Natural Gas, staff believes that the City should continue to operate conventional diesel engine vehicles at this time, but however look towards utilizing bio-diesel fuel. Electric hybrid technology has proven to be extremely effective. However, the cost to acquire transit vehicles that operate on this technology is cost prohibitive adding approximately $200,000 to the unit price of a vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers readily admit that with current fuel prices, the additional investment made in electric hybrid technology will not covered over the life of the vehicle. Furthermore, operating vehicles on compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas has had mixed-results in the transit industry. First, the cost alone for a fueling station is over $2,000,000. Second, transit systems have experienced service reliability issues, especially in cold weather. Third, the cost of natural gas is no longer as inexpensive as it once was and the price is comparable to gasoline. Many larger urban transit systems in the country that invested in this technology are abandoning the use of this technology and are moving towards electric hybrids or back to conventional diesel buses.
The City for budgeting purposes should factor an acquisition cost of $320,000 per vehicle for a 30ft., heavy-duty, low-floor, wheelchair lift equipped, conventional diesel bus allowing for price differences between manufacturers, inflation, increased manufacturing cost, increased cost for engine components caused by stricter EPA emission standards, and the installation of fare-boxes and security cameras. Bus manufacturers have indicated to anticipate a 3% increase annually, excluding the increased cost for engines.
The Transit Department highly recommends that the City consider acquiring fixed-route transit vehicles manufactured by the Gillig Bus Corporation based out of Hayward, CA. This is a privately owned-bus company that has been in existence for over 115 years. Gillig has a very strong reputation in the transit industry for having vehicles that are proven workhorses that can withstand heavy-duty transit use. In addition, the company is highly regarded in terms of providing excellent customer service. There is a reason that the City of Wichita, Kansas City Area Transit Authority, Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority and Johnson County Transit all own and operate Gillig buses. In speaking with numerous peers in the transit industry nationwide, there have not been any negative comments said about Gillig. The vehicles may cost more than other similar sized transit vehicles, but in terms of quality there is no comparison. The City would be best served to replace current fixed-route vehicles with these proven workhorses.
RECOMMENDED FIXED-ROUTE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Since the existing fixed-route fleet average age is 5 years, that leaves approximately a year and a half until the service-life in mileage is reached on the entire fleet. I anticipate the fleet reaching it’s service life around December 2008. Typically there is a 18 month cycle from the time of ordering buses to delivery. However, we recently found with the KU Park and Ride bus acquisition, that the turn-around time was less than two months. I believe that was a unique situation where Optima Bus was able to fit our order into a gap in their production schedule. In addition, for that procurement the City exercised options from another transit agency that dramatically cut-down on RFP development, solicitation and award. The Transit Department recommendation would be for the City to excise available options for another transit agency by June of this year to acquire at least five (5) and possibly six (6) 30ft., low-floor, heavy-duty, ADA-accessible, conventional diesel engine buses at a unit cost of $320,000 each utilizing available Federal transit earmark funds received as well as a portion of funding set aside in the Transit Department’s Vehicle Equipment Reserve Account. If an order is placed in June, the buses would be delivered by January 2009 when a new operating contract would go into effect. As funding becomes available in the future the remaining six (6) or seven (7) vehicles ready for replacement can be acquired. This plan will replace at least half of the current fixed-route fleet as well as stagger the replacement of the future fixed-route fleet. More importantly it will maintain a level of service that Lawrence citizens have come to expect and will help keep City costs down in negotiating a future operating contract. See detailed plan below:
Proposed Replacement Schedule for Fixed-Route Vehicles
Below is a schedule for the replacement of fixed-route vehicles utilizing existing funding:
|
June 2007 |
Formally transfer (piggyback) vehicle options from another transit agency to place order to acquire fixed-route vehicles.
|
|
December 2008 |
Transit buses ordered are delivered to Lawrence.
|
|
January 2009 |
Transit buses delivered are put into revenue service replacing existing fixed-route vehicles that have met their useful service requirements |
As additional Federal and local funding becomes available to replace existing fixed-route vehicles, they will be replaced via transferring options or piggybacking off of another transit agency’s vehicle bid.
AVAILABLE FUNDING SOURCES FOR FIXED-ROUTE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
The Transit Department currently has available $800,000 in local funds that have been placed into an Capital Equipment Reserve. In addition, the City currently has available three Federal discretionary earmarks that total $1,280,550 that can be used for vehicle replacement. Federal funds can be utilized to cover up to 83% of vehicle acquisition costs as long as the procurement meets Federal Transit Administration guidelines.
Table C below describes the Federal discretionary earmark funds available.
Table C:
|
Year |
Funding Source |
Earmark Language |
Federal Amount |
|
FY04 |
FHWA Section 115 |
Lawrence, KS Transit System Maintenance Facility |
$400,000* |
|
FY05 |
FTA Section 5309 |
Lawrence Transit System - Bus and Bus Facilities |
$491,839** |
|
FY05 |
FTA Section 5309 |
Lawrence Transit System – Bus and Bus Facility |
$388,711** |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
$1,280,550 |
* Section 115 earmark is 100% Federal funded with no local match required. These funds are currently approved in a grant to fund a Bus Maintenance Feasibility Study and conduct environmental clearance work. Since the Fall, the Transit Department has been working with Congressman Dennis Moore’s office to get the language of this earmark broadened to read “Bus and Bus Facilities” to increase the City’s flexibility in how these funds are utilized. The City Commission in April authorized staff to utilize all existing earmark funds for fixed-route vehicle replacement. At this time, staff is still awaiting formal notification from Congressman Dennis Moore’s office that the language of the Section 115 earmark has been officially changed. According to their office, the City’s request for this change should be in the next letter that goes from the chair and ranking Appropriations Committee member to FTA, requesting/approving various earmarks modifications. The letter was to suppose to be sent sometime in March and that the Congressman’s office would notify staff immediately when the letter was sent. Staff understands based on conversations with the Congressman’s staff that these types are letters are routinely drafted a couple times a year. Until formal word is received from Congress, the City will not be able to utilize these available funds for vehicle replacement.
** - FY05 Earmarks are scheduled to lapse September 30, 2007. If funds are not obligated in a grant before this time, FTA prefers by June due to the grant approval process, then the City risks losing these funds.
Below are two options the City could utilize to replace to replace vehicles with existing funds:
Option 1: Utilize $1,920,000 of existing funds ($1,280,550 Federal and $639,450 local funds from equipment reserve) to acquire six (6) 30ft., heavy-duty, low-floor, ADA-accessible, conventional diesel powered transit vehicles at a unit cost of $320,000 each. This would leave an equipment reserve balance of $160,550.
Option 2: Utilize $1,600,000 of existing funds ($1,280,550 Federal and $319,450 local funds from the equipment reserve) to acquire five (5) 30ft., heavy-duty, low-floor, ADA-accessible, conventional diesel powered transit vehicles at a unit cost of $320,000 each. This would leave an equipment reserve balance of $480,550 to be used for future vehicle purchases or match for future FTA capital grants.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO FOR FIXED-ROUTE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
Federal discretionary earmark funds can only be used for capital purposes and can cover up to 80% for bus facility or related capital equipment expenses and up to 83% for transit vehicle replacement as long as the vehicles are ADA-accessible (wheelchair lift equipped).
In February, the City Commission authorized staff to formally make an earmark request to the Kansas Congressional Delegation to obtain Federal funding to address the transit system’s capital needs. A total transit earmark funding request in the amount of $2,320,000 was made to the Kansas Congressional Delegation in March to acquire six (6) fixed-route vehicles at a unit cost of $320,000 each and to fund a Bus Maintenance Facility Feasibility Study. This funding request was included at the request of the University of Kansas who is interested in exploring the feasibility of the City and University sharing in the cost of constructing a joint-use Bus Maintenance/Administration facility for both City and University Transit Services. Furthermore, the City Commission agreed that the City would provide the federally required local match for any Federal funds received. The University also agreed to cover half of the local match requirement for any funding received for the feasibility study of joint Bus Maintenance/Administration facility. Mayor Amyx then made a formal request to the Kansas Department of Transportation about using available Kansas Turnpike Toll Credits as in-kind match to cover Federally funded local match requirements as other communities in Kansas have done in the past. The City should be informed in October if the earmark request was funded and at what amount. Typically, Federal earmark funds received by communities are a fraction of the funding request made.
Recently, the Federal Transit Administration notified grantees nationwide of a total of $438,184,372 in available (49 U.S.C 5309) discretionary funds that were not allocated in FY06 and FY07. These discretionary funds can only be used only for bus and bus facility projects. The discretionary funds are intended to provide financial assistance to help transit providers address planned capital improvements beyond what can be provided with existing resources such as Urbanized Area (49 U.S.C. 5307) and Non-urbanized Area (49 U.S.C. 5311) formula resources that are currently available to grantees. These competitive grants will support cost effective strategic investments in buses and bus facility projects that represent the highest and best use of the available discretionary funding. There are no minimum or maximum funding limits for applications, however FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible. FTA may allocate less than the total amount requested in the application. The grant submission deadline is May 22, 2007.
While funds under the program have a three year period of availability for obligation, FTA intends to award grants for the selected projects before the end of FY07 or in the first quarter of FY2008. Grants are subject to a 20 percent local match requirement and projects must comply with all the requirements applicable to the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facility Program.
FTA will give special consideration to applications that address the following priority areas that FTA has established for the FY2007 discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities program:
• Fleet replacement needs that cannot be met with formula funds.
• Fleet expansion that allows significant service increase and/or improvements and/or operating efficiencies.
• Facility construction or renovation to support increased service or introduction of clean fuels.
• Strategic investments in rural areas where formula funding is inadequate.
• Purchase of clean fuel vehicles.
• Intermodal terminal projects that include intercity bus providers.
The City should submit a grant application seeking Federal funding for at least six (6) and preferably seven (7) fixed-route vehicles at a unit cost of $330,000 each based on PPI price fluctuations. If the City seeks funding for seven (7) vehicles the total amount would be $2,310,000.
Included in the grant request should also be funding to complete a feasibility study for a new joint City/University of Kansas Bus Maintenance/Administration facility in the amount of $400,000 that mirrors the City’s FY08 Transit Earmark Request to Congress. In an effort towards coordinating City and University transit services, the Transit Department and the University of Kansas representatives mutually understand one of the greatest benefits of coordination would be sharing in the cost of designing, constructing, and operating a shared maintenance/administration facility.
The total funding request submitted in the grant would be $2,710,000.
Pursuing available funds in the FY07 FTA “Bus and Bus Facility” grant is a way to improve the City’s chances of receiving sufficient federal transit funds to address its current vehicle replacement needs.
The last source of available Federal funds that could be used for addressing vehicle replacement needs is to utilize any additional FTA Small Transit Intensive City Formula funding the City receives for this purpose. Small Transit Intensive Cities funding is available to urban transit systems that operate in small urban communities less than 200,000 in population but provide levels of service in terms of ridership and other other performance criteria that compares with larger urban sytems. There are 6 eligible criteria. For each criteria obtained equals approximately $130,000. The Lawrence Transit System currently meets one of the criteria. If the City receives additional STIC funding in the future based on reaching other performance requirements, this funding should be used to address capital needs.
OTHER AVAILABLE SOURCES OF FUNDING
The City, where appropriate, should continue to request the use of Kansas Turnpike Authority Toll Credits from the Kansas Department of Transportation as “in-kind” local match for Federal funds obtained for capital purposes. The Transit Department learned earlier this year that other communities in Kansas for a number of years have utilized KTA Toll Credits to meet federally required local match requirements for federal grants. Where appropriate, KDOT has been willing to provide these toll credits to communities in need as long as they are used for transportation capital purposes. KDOT has indicated that communities should not come to rely on toll credits on an annual basis and should only request KDOT assistance on specific projects where local match may be an issue.
LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO FUNDING THE REPLACEMENT OF FIXED-ROUTE VEHICLES
The City should continue to actively pursue seeking Federal transit discretionary earmark funds annually to help cover the cost of vehicle replacement and other capital needs. However, since there are no funding guarantees, the Transit Department does not think it is wise to solely rely on this source of funds to replace vehicles in the future. As such, the Transit Department believes the City should begin to implement in FY08 annualizing the cost of replacing fixed-route transit vehicles over the life cycle of the vehicle instead of waiting until the vehicle is nearing or has reached it’s useful service life before identifying funds for replacement. In the long-term, the City will be best served by implementing this replacement schedule ensuring the level of service provided to Lawrence citizens is not disrupted due to excessive vehicle failure and downtime for repairs. The cost of replacing vehicles is expensive and sometimes cost prohibitive. However the cost of operating vehicles past their useful service lives can also be cost prohibitive as well as impacting the level of service provided to citizens. Spreading that cost over a number of years softens the impact of trying to find a large portion of funds at one time.
Since the City currently operates a fleet of twelve (12) fixed-route vehicles, and that upon replacement will have manufacturer’s useful service life of twelve years, it would be appropriate for the City to budget for the cost of replacing one (1) fixed-route vehicle annually. The current cost of a 30ft. heavy-duty, low-floor, conventional diesel engine transit vehicle is $320,000. The price to acquire this equipment in the future will be more. Vehicle manufacturers recommend factoring a 3% to 5% price increase annually based on PPI fluctuations.
FUNDING VEHICLES FOR SERVICE EXPANSION
This vehicle replacement plan for Fixed-Route and Paratransit vehicles does not factor increased hours or days of service that may impact the replacement schedule. Furthermore, this schedule does not include the funding for vehicles that may be needed for service expansion to increase frequency of service, add routes to serve new areas of the community, or implement some form of consolidation with KU bus service.
RECOMMENDED PARK & RIDE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Considerations for capital replacement should also be made for the five buses recently acquired to operate the KU West Campus Park and Ride System. The City will need to coordinate with the University on developing a replacement schedule for these City-owned vehicles. The vehicles were acquired utilizing $1,000,000 in Federal funding received through KDOT. In addition, local funds also were provided by KU in the amount of $348,005. Upon completion of the 2006 Fall Semester and 2007 Spring Semester, the City and University should have a much better understanding of the average mileage accumulated on each bus annually based on the hours of operation. At that time, the City and University should jointly work together to budget sufficient funding annually to spread the cost of replacement out over remaining service life of these vehicles if the City desires to continue to be involved with Park and Ride operations once these vehicles meet their useful service requirements. Note the Park and Ride ridership statistics are included in with City ridership statistics as reported to the Federal Government. This additional ridership should help the City receive additional Federal Transit Administration Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula Funding in the future. In FY06 (August – December) the Park and Ride generated 138,319 trips.
OPTIONS ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE VEHICLES THAT ARE REPLACED
Once vehicles are replaced, the City has a variety of options in terms of what to do with them. Those options include:
(1) Sell the vehicles on Ebay as the City has done in the past and use the proceeds to put towards the acquisition cost of new vehicles. FTA requires that if the proceeds of a vehicle sold are less than $5,000 then we do not have pay back FTA their pro-rated share of the proceeds. However, if the proceeds are $5,000 or greater we either have to pay FTA their pro-rated share or get disposition instructions from them. FTA will allow that all the proceeds can be used towards the acquisition of new vehicles. To date, the City has never replaced a fixed-route vehicle. However the City has sold many paratransit vehicles in the past. The proceeds for paratransit vehicles ranged from $5,550 to $7,850. The City maybe able to gross more with the sale of fixed-route vehicles. However, according to Topeka Transit, which sold some of their fixed-route vehicles when they reached their service life in age (12 years), they were compensated between $200 to $2,000 per vehicle. According to their maintenance manager, since the fixed-route vehicles the City would be selling would be lift-equipped and not have the same age as the Topeka fleet replaced, the City could possibly be compensated more. He guesses that the City could possibly be compensated $5,000 to $20,000 per vehicle. It is possible the City could even obtain more through competitive bidding.
(2) Sell the vehicles to the University of Kansas or incorporate into a coordinated and/or consolidated transit system to help upgrade the existing University fleet. Even though these buses will be past their service life in terms of Federal involvement, the University maybe interested since these vehicles will be less than half the age of their current fleet, which averages 22 years. In addition, each vehicle is ADA accessible, air-conditioned, and more environmentally-friendly than their current fleet. The University has expressed a desire to acquire thirty ADA accessible vehicles. The City’s fixed-route fleet could replace and upgrade a third to almost half of their current fleet at a price much more affordable than acquiring new. KU may not be willing to purchase these vehicles due to their smaller size and capacity, even though they are newer vehicles.
(3) Utilize a couple fixed-route vehicles to increase the frequency of service on Route 8 and Route 7 from 80 minutes to 40 minutes. This would improve existing service by all routes on the transit system operating on a 40 minute schedule. Note implementation of this recommendation would require additional funding to operate these vehicles. This option would also require keeping an additional fixed-route vehicle to maintain a spare ratio of 20% as required by FTA.
(4) Keep some of the fixed-route or paratransit vehicles to operate for special events. Once the Federal involvement in these vehicles is ended, the City can do what it wants in terms of operating these vehicles as long as Federal funds are not used to operate and maintain these vehicles. Currently the City is prohibited from using transit vehicles for any special function that would be considered charter service since it is in violation of FTA’s Charter Regulations. On occasion the Transit Department receives requests to provide special service that is outside of the scope of existing public transit services. In terms of retaining title with buyout, FTA requires that they be compensated by computing percentage of FTA participation in the original cost. Multiply the current fair market value of the property by this percentage. The grantee (City) must then document the basis for value determination typically conducted through an appraisal or market survey. Sales procedures shall be followed that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return or at least payment of appraised fair market value.
(5) Keep a few fixed-route or paratransit vehicles to serve as a contingency fleet that could be utilized for a variety of purposes including emergency evacuations caused by man-made or natural disasters. FTA first requires an approved written contingency plan prior to designating vehicles for contingency.
(6) Keep a couple paratransit vehicles and continue to authorize the operating contractor to use them as ADA-accessible road supervisor vehicles as long as the contractor pays entirely for the cost of operating, maintaining and insuring the vehicles. Ownership of these vehicles would remain with the city and they would be sold when they were no longer functional for any purpose. Having larger capacity ADA-accessible supervisor vehicles is useful for both services.
(7) Sell, transfer or donate one paratransit vehicle replaced to the Douglas County Jail who has expressed interest in acquiring one of these vehicles to transport released inmates.