Overcoming Jurisdictional Boundaries

Transcription

1 Overcoming Jurisdictional Boundaries Agenda: 1:10-2:00 Panel Introductions (10 min) Audience Ice Breaker: name, organization, biggest jurisdictional challenge facing your region. (15 min max) Presentation (20 min) Q and A (5-10 min) 2:10-3:00 Panel Introductions (10 min) Audience Ice Breaker: name, organization, biggest jurisdictional challenge facing your region. (15 min max) Presentation (20 min) Q and A (5-10 min) 1

2 2 Austin region is served by a metropolitan transit authority and 2 rural transit providers: CARTS and Hill Country Transit. Due to jurisdictional boundary issues, public transit service is not always seamless. The main jurisdictional boundary issue in the Austin region: Rural transit provider does not receive funding to serve the urbanized area. MTA does not serve the entire urbanized area because it relies on membership through collection of 1 cent sales tax several communities on the fringes of the urbanized area have opted out of MTA service, or never opted in. Affects of jurisdictional boundaries have long been felt by transit dependent and transportation providers, but starting to be a major issue for a broader public. Public doesn t see urbanized area boundary all they see is no service In order to provide an option for filling these gaps, the Cap Metro Board recently approved a policy which would allow jurisdictions to pay for the cost of extending service/providing stops (rather than having to opt into the sales tax) however, no one has take advantage of this option yet.

3 HOP Cap Metro CARTS TxDOT Austin District CAMPO CAPCOG and RTCC 3 Capital Metro: MTA Recipient of urban FTA funding Supported by 1 cent sales tax levied within it s service area 500 square mile service area 34 million total annual boardings Local bus service, paratransit within ¼ mile of fixed route + paratransit to certain communities outside service area that opted out of Cap Metro service area (state law) Commuter rail launch in fall CARTS Rural Transit District Recipient of rural FTA funding 7,500 square mile service area 300,000 annual trips Array of community transit services: Demand responsive rural service Commuter and Intercity buses Fixed route local bus service: san marcos, bastrop, georgetown Medical Transportation Contract Hill Country Transit/The Hop Rural Transit District 9,000 Square Mile Service area 500,000 annual trips Serves Llano County within our region Transit Planning and Funding Boundaries: CAMPO TxDOT Austin District CAPCOG and RTCC Not served: urbanized area outside of Cap Metro Service area, except: CMTA paratransit; CARTS contracted service Other public providers: Bob Cat Tram, Round Rock Proposed service 3

4 Stakeholder Agency Responsibilities CAMPO coordinates process and drafts strategies for approval by RTCC and stakeholder agencies CAPCOG provides supporting data and analysis Capital Metro, CARTS, Round Rock, etc. participate in a forum convened by CAMPO to address jurisdictional boundaries 4 Overarching goal: analyze existing conditions and develop an approach for addressing the transit dead zones and making public transit systems function more seamlessly Involves coordination among multiple agencies, each with a specific role in the effort. 4

5 Overcoming Jurisdictional and Boundary Issues Capital Metro serves urbanized area residents that have approved a local option metropolitan transit authority sales tax CARTS serves residents outside the urbanized area Almost 200,000 urbanized area residents fall outside of Capital Metro and CARTS service areas Identified as highest priority action item in the Regional Transit Coordination Plan for the Capital Area 5 Problem definition, as I have mentioned: Cap Metro only services residents of communities that have approved a local option MTA sales tax not every community in the urbanized area has CARTS receives funding only for areas outside the urbanized area and only provides services within the urbanized area if local community contracts for that service however, CARTS is a rural provider and is not able to provide the level of service needed in an urban area. Almost 200,000 people live in the area that is not adequately served by either Capital Metro or CARTS. Problem will continue to grow as the urbanized area grows under future censuses. Overcoming this issue was identified as the highest priority action item in the RTCC Plan. 5

6 Major Tasks Identified in Work Plan 1. Analyze existing conditions a. Review of data gathered during 2006 planning process b. Regulatory and fiscal research c. Analyze spatial gaps in transit service d. Inventory transit dependent employers 2. Identify possible solutions based on existing conditions 3. Develop a report for endorsement by RTCC 4. Identify strategies for additional study or implementation 6 Our Work Plan identifies 4 major subtasks for this process. Subtask 1 is nearly complete and we anticipate completing the remaining subtasks by early In addition, we will be working with TTI who will be providing some additional research on the urbanized area issue specifically and identifying some strategies based on what has worked elsewhere. I m now going to turn it over to Sean Moran who will walk you through the data analysis that we have done so far related to this issue. 6

7 Sales Tax Returned to Incorporated Cities 7 7

8 Urban Typology for the Capital Area 8 8

9 Transit Demand: HH and Employment Density 9 9

10 Potential Strategies Local Region State Federal Example Redistribute FTA Funds X Raise Local Sales Tax X X ID New Funding Source Contract for Service X X X Cities receive urban 5307 State removes cap; cities opt in Cities contract for transit service New Service Providers X X Round Rock, Texas State University 10 We will be working with TTI and our Regional Transit Committee members to identify additional strategies to overcome the boundary issues, but staff has identified some preliminary strategies that would likely appear on this list Urbanized are FTA formula funding currently goes to Capital Metro as designated recipient for the region however, several communities have raised this as an issue over the years, since Capital Metro is receiving funds based on population outside of their service area.counter argument can be made that 5307 funding is also allocated based on other factors including transit route miles, and there is no requirement that funding be distributed throughout the urbanized area plus, 5307 can only be spent on capital so local communities would need to come up with operations funding. Several communities have approached FTA and Capital Metro about pursuing this strategy. Sales Tax is already maxed out would need to redistribute tax spending/ or overcome state law. New funding sources are being looked at, particularly for rail projects in addition JARC/New Freedom CARTS is currently contracting for service in some locations Cap Metro policy would allow CAP Metro to do this. Folks are starting to add service on their own.txtram uses primarily student fees, but has successfully applied for some federal money to connect San Marcos and Austin. Round Rock will be contracting for services connecting Tech Ridge Park and Ride to Round Rock. This fragmented system will still require a regional approach to marketing and public information. 10

11 Lessons Learned Scope Entire region vs. focus on urbanized area All public transportation vs. focused on fixed route Current problem vs. future problem Approach Data vs. negotiation Quick and focused vs. comprehensive How we ve balanced Entire region with particular focus on urbanized area Focus on fixed route paratransit will be considered under its own work plan focus area Current and future problem Approach with data and stakeholder meetings 11 Within our region, we ve had some spirited debates about how to approach the issue. Some want the focus to be on solving current problems within the existing urbanized area others want a more comprehensive focus that can be used as the urbanized area continues to expand. The focus ended up being primarily on fixed route urban transit, but folks are also interested in paratransit, demand responsive, etc, so that has been incorporated into a specific future action item. Some want to sit down and negotiate solutions, while others on the committee were more interested in doing a comprehensive analysis of data. We ve tried to balance these desires. Our next steps will be to work with TTI to convene a stakeholders forum, do additional targeted research, package the findings and strategy recommendations into a report and begin sharing that report with decision makers around the region, to help support them to take the next step in terms of identifying funding for additional service and streamlining. 11

12 For Additional Support Documentation and Info Capital Area RTCC c/o CAMPO PO Box 1088 Austin, TX