City of Lawrence
Public Transit Advisory Committee
September 9, 2014 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Heather Thies, Jane Huesemann, Mark Hurt, Alan Black, Marian Hukle |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Lyle Hettinger, James Pavision, James Canaday, Jenny Erice |
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
Robert Nugent, Serena Pearson, Danny Kaiser, Jessica Mortinger, Mike Sweeten, Dave Corliss, Casey Toomay |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
Saunny Scott |
1. Call to Order
Marian Hukle, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:10. Quorum.
2. Introductions
Introductions went around the room.
3. Approval of Minutes from July 8, 2014
Minutes were approved. Mark Hurt motioned to approve, Alan Black seconded, all in favor, no opposed.
4. Funding Requests and Future Service (Discussion)
Bob Nugent started discussion. At last meeting there was a lot of discussion about funding of Johnson County service and funding of sidewalk improvement. PTAC committee had questions and concerns about the City Commission decision to fund Johnson County Transit $120,000 in 2014, and $120,000 in 2015. Bob turned the discussion and questions over to Dave Corliss.
Dave Corliss, City Manager, thanked the PTAC Committee for their service. He said that the K-10 Connector is an interesting project and that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Mike King, mentioned the value of the K-10 Connector at a meeting this morning. The route started as a Johnson County Transit service. They approached us a couple of years ago and said they would be asking us for money to help fund the K-10 Connector in the future.
Dave Corliss stated that the PTAC committee’s concerns were relayed to the City Commission prior to their decision to approve funding to Johnson County Transit. Dave said that he made it clear to the Commission that funding this service may crowd out other transit items, but the Commission made the decision to fund it anyway. They asked for additional partners (KU and JCCC) since this service benefits higher education institutions. The survey was done reflecting this, and just last week they approached officials at KU. The officials at KU see the benefit of the service, but they don’t have money, and it would be the choice of students to fund it.
The question is who owns this issue and who is going to participate in it? There is value in it, but it is a different type of transit service since it is primarily students who use it. Also, is $3.50 per ride the right cost for this service? This community struggles with finding right next steps forward for high school graduates. This service helps students get to JCCC so it benefits our community. The City Commission understands the value of the K-10 Commuter, but they are still concerned that there are not enough other partners participating. They also may not understand the consequence of how this affects service on Lawrence Transit routes. Long-term, from a regional standpoint, this type of service make sense and worthy of further discussion.
Jane Huesemann stated that the committee discussed that the K-10 is a valuable service, but what are we trading off and how was this characterized to the City Commission? Is it our job as the advisory committee to advise the commission on transit budget? Dave Corliss said that yes, the advisory committee can be a good sounding board for advice on the budget. There was discussion, but not a lot of discussion about what other transit service this funding could pay for instead of Johnson County Transit.
Mark Hurt asked why Johnson County offered this service in the first place. Danny Kaiser explained that Johnson County had stockpiled some money that KDOT have given them and they had not spent. They decided to start this service, at the recommendation of KDOT. It was supplemented by 3 year CMAQ funds, which have run out. Mark then stated that state funding is appropriated by riders and miles. This service provides a lot of riders and miles that Johnson County and KDOT are not sharing one number on this. Is this funding subsidizing other Johnson County transit routes? If they cut this route, they would be hurting themselves, and if that is the case, why are we using our tax money in Lawrence to fund this, especially when the primary beneficiary, JCCC, will not fund any part of this. Dave Corliss answered that our 2015 money should be continued upon how we get some of the numbers that we asked for. We need them to appropriately balance some of these items. When we did the survey, there are as many Douglas County residents using this as Johnson County.
Mark Hurt stated that he is concerned whether the K-10 Connector benefits Douglas County, or does it benefit the rest of the Johnson County Transit system. Dave Corliss answered that we are going to look at their costs and ridership numbers, but the issue of their long-term viability and who pays for this is up in the air. We tried to get as much information as we could. That is why a survey was done. Mark asked how the City Commission could make the decision to fund this without having these numbers to begin with. Then, Marian Hukle asked the question if we are going to be part of Johnson County Transit, shouldn’t the city give us additional funds to cover the $120,000 loss? Dave Corliss answered that they asked for 400K to start. We said no, but maybe we will build up to this over time. The commission sees this as a valuable service, and the city sales tax receipts have been doing well this year, which works in our favor.
Alan Black asked if this $120,000 will help Johnson County Transit to pay for other routes in their system. Dave Corliss answered that there is a million dollar cost to run this route. If you take off other money that they get, it is approximately $600K out of their pockets to run the route. They may use the $120,000 for other routes, but we have no control over that.
Bob Nugent stated that a few years ago, Johnson County went before their advisory board to determine which routes to cut. They determined that they would not cut the K-10 Connector since it accounts for 20% of their ridership. There is no way to track how they spend the $120,000 and this is concerning. We recently heard that they started a new bus route. They may also use the money to pay their administrative costs, which are four times what ours are. We agree that it is a valuable service but how is it run? Are there other ways that it could be run more successfully? If it is costing them $100 per vehicle hour, could we do it (or MV, a company like Trailways) for $60 or $70 an hour?
Jane Huesemann asked if maybe we should we discuss how losing this $120,000 affects our existing service? Dave Corliss explained that it will not affect capital improvements, but once we get new transit center it may affect our ability to provide needed transit service. Bob Nugent explained that if we take the routes that are currently running every 60 minutes and make them every 30 minutes, it will cost us an additional one million dollars. Once we move into a new transit center, we will want hard transfers (so no one will be waiting at the transit center.) According to Olsson, it will cost around $300,000 to move routes around and change service.
Mark Hurt made a point that increasing route times will also increase the number of bus drivers needed. This will help the economy since 14 to 18 new drivers may be needed. Bob Nugent stated that we have never spelled out exactly how much increased service will cost. Dave Corliss said that we also need to figure out costs associated with the transit center, and closely colliding with that, what will happen in April 2019 with the sales tax referendum. Bob Nugent said that we will have to do it right in order to show our success in four years.
Mark Hurt asked what is the likelihood of getting real numbers from Johnson County. Bob Nugent said that we are working on getting numbers, but difficult to estimate, so we will need real numbers. We will be going to KPTA to get the real numbers.
Dave Corliss closed by saying he thinks it would be good to do a budget 101 class for this group around March of next year since we will know a lot more about this topic at that time. This will help the committee have the right information in place to present to City Commission for next year.
5. Transit Survey (Discussion) – Serena Pearson
Serena Pearson presented results of survey. This was performed online and at public transit center meetings.
The top three improvements that people requested:
There are also comments listed that we will take into consideration. About 150 people responded to survey.
Mark Hurt: Noticed that people want more service and they want it to run more often.
Bob Nugent: This is good information to present to commission since we have all kinds of items to prove our case that we need more service in Lawrence. If we look at the list of items, a lot of these items will be addressed with the transit center and restructuring of service.
Heather Thies: How did the Transit Center public meetings go?
Bob Nugent: Transit Center meetings went well since we were able to talk to people one-on-one and hear what the public had to say. We did a pretty good job of educating people on what a transit center is.
6. Proposed Changes to T Lift Policy (Action Item)
Bob Nugent explained the change to the T-Lift policy as a result of a finding during the Triennial review. We will be removing the no-show policy that says that if a person has 6 no-shows and/or late cancellations within a 90 day period, this may result in suspension. It will be replaced with the statement saying that a rider with an ongoing pattern of excessive no-shows and/or late cancellations may be suspended from service for up to 30 days.
Motion: Alan Black moved to approve new policy, second by Heather Thies. All in favor, no opposed, 4 ayes, 1 abstained (Mark Hurt).
7. Quick Updates – Bob Nugent
a. FTA Reviews – Drug and Alcohol review. MV staff did very well, only a couple of small items found that we have already addressed. Tri-Annual review only had a few items, no big findings or anything we can’t fix almost immediately.
b. Transit Center Public Meetings – Meetings went well.
c. 21st Street Neighborhood Meetings – Neighborhood meeting tomorrow. We are working with neighborhood on traffic mitigation strategies – one meeting so far, two more meetings at Carnegie. At end of this we will have strategies that will be accepted by neighborhood, then bring this and traffic analysis to commission. It will probably take a year before we make move to new transit center.
d. Route 2 – This is a new Flex route from 6th and Wakarusa to Rock Chalk Park. We did not start on August 1, as planned, since there were problems with road beds, but we will be starting this route in mid-September and a formal opening will be in October. Route 2 will also serve the Prairie Commons apartments. We expect ridership shifting, so this area may need more service in future.
8. Public Comment:
The general consensus is that 4:10 p.m. works best for most people on this committee to meet.
Saunny Scott would like meeting time changed to 5:10 p.m.
9. Next Meeting (Proposed):
November 11, 2014 (Veteran’s Day)
10. Adjournment
5:10 p.m.
-Submitted by Serena Pearson