Loading...
09-16-2004 4� LAS CRUCES AREA TRANSIT (RoadRUNNER) 'TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD } MEETING MINUTES The Transit Advisory Board (TAB) meeting was held on Thursday, September 16, 2004 at Branigan Library (Pearl Higgins Room), 200 E. Picacho Ave., Las Cruces, New Mexico. Members Present: C. Harvey, Chairman, C. Wilson, Jr., V. Chair, M. Baumann, M. Elrod Members Absent: M. Acosta, J. Garcia Others Present: Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator; Mary Ann Flenniken, Transit Administrative Secretary; Earl Torres, Operations Supervisor, Tom Murphy, MPO Planner; Councillor Wesley Strain; Also in attendance were general public (see attached). I. Bus Dedication Event(Branigan Library Parking Lot) The dedication of the new buses with the Ribbon Cutting started at 3:00 p.m. The regular meeting started following the dedication. II. Call to Order and Roll Call Call to order at 3:45 p.m. by C. Harvey. Mike Bartholomew introduced Captain Steven Lopez, who was nominated by Ben Woods to represent NMSU and to finish the appointment of Chris Ray who resigned earlier this year. III. Approval of minutes of August 19, 2004 A motion was made by M. Elrod to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by M. Baumann. Motion carried. IV. Action Items A. Wal-Mart Shelter MOU -The Board was presented a Memorandum of Understand for the Wal-Mart Shelter. This is an agreement for the bus to drive across their property. M. Baumann moved to approve this MOU. Seconded by C. Wilson, Jr. Motion carried. B. Recommendation to JARC - M. Bartholomew reviewed the background information for JARC. Transit has the commitment from the Federal Grant for$40,000 and a match from the state. The Legal Department has reviewed the recommendation. M. Baumann recommended to proceed as presented. Seconded by C. Harvey. Motion carried. C. Recommendation for "Old" Shelter Sites. —A new shelter list was presented and explained by E. Torres. Recommendations were also received from M. Johnson. There was concern that the site recommendations for the old shelters may actually need newer shelters. It was explained that the pad size is about the same and it will not be a problem to install the newer shelter in the pad that was S poured for the old shelters. M. Elrod moved to proceed with this recommendation. Seconded by M. Baumann. Motion carried. V. Items for Discussion and Updates A. Status of Shelters •- The new shelters that have been ordered will be arriving by the end of October. T. Murphy has been working with the Right-A-Way to obtain the property for three sites. B. Adopt-A-Shelter Program - T. Murphy presented the Adopt-A-Shelter program. After some questions the Board recommended to approve this program. It will now be going to Council for approval. C. Status of the FTA Review Findings - M. Bartholomew submitted the review to the FTA. They are now satisfied with the JARC issue. D. Discussion of Ridership - M. Bartholomew reviewed the ridership count to the Board. Dial-A-Ride is busting at the seams. VI. Public Comment There was no public comment. VII. Board Comment A question was asked about putting the times on the bus stops. The Board was reminded of the sign that was presented to the Board which will put the times on the stops. There will also be a full schedule at Mesilla Valley Mall and at the CTP. C. Wilson, Jr. stated he has received 27 phone calls this past month with concerns about Transit. M. Bartholomew announced that "Free Fare Days" will begin on Monday A new Schedule is being distributed starting tomorrow. We are looking at options to service the Eastside Community Center and will be holding a public forum to discuss these possibilities. VI. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:15 p.m. M. Baumann moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by C. Wilson, Jr. Motion carried. Prepared by: Approved by: Mary Ann Flenniken, Secretary Charles Harvey, Chair Date: AWA co co Lf') n v co CO v r\ CO u) co 00 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N f6 O H M M M co Co Cl) h Il) @ to to � t0 cc O M 03 �7' O t- 0) M O i() M N to W) R •M- � N � N LO N OMr O (O 0) (D T m O 00 V- %- O) to Go O O ON co m 'p N e- N N V. N N N V- O > a oI� .- o N MM � o � � o o � � � o o �_ � O co h Go V' v o 0 0 ( o c o 0 M a0 O 0) N M `? ^ 'Co O) t- W) (o N to M N M R u) R C4 N 1t') O) O) O N O fit' V' M OD Q N N N N N N NN N N N N N Q N O) M to V 7 O O h M '7 IV N 0 �... N It h (('! tt 7 ♦t 4f) h ([) d' �Y t00 Q 0 e N O coi 0 N_ ntD MROR (() RONO MN N N n N (V .- M O oc — N O N to O In O R R R tcJ M R R R R LL) R R L Q 75 O ~ N th0) O) t0 r — t0 0) 0) co N r r N r > y Q ! } o c o OU-) R I` N I-- N V n r 0 0 o fa t` CO N O M CO O ti O) N n 0 O tD u fA O N CO WM O to R CO 00 M Cl) M M N M CMM M C) M M OR Of 1 LL C L M N d U c rn O 0) (y M d MI,- ONNNMMtoO to Qt0 N h O i s QOC) mO) tT t100 � N ` O t0 tD C-4 0 i v LOzr co r Q � 0) 'T - O tt) 0) to CO co R N O co O (D co C ti R CO co O co tp r- N O) O O) a0 co Q } ) LL m L O o 0 0 .+ OC14 N 3 m O L, O 00 O O 00 R R M Q N N N 'O C to M N to (O O O (0 r- 00 O N O) r (O Q R to R to LL) t() R R to LO R R R u R r G = E >. 0 0 0 N a to Q) M CO LO O N n co O N tp co CO r w p N N co R M M N O) n O N Cl) M r- co } _ to to (n (D O t9 CO to ((� to to (D co LL) LO « C LL N Ln U Wis N t) p0Opppoppr +�+ 0 00 N R M co co m R r t- N _O _� O) M O N R O O N 'O '� y O r LL) q0 co M M N N R R to t() R ate+ J {y MRN O) M R M M N N Cl) Cl) Cl) N t7 . y N F O Q = m LL w a rn ^ OCN W _ as 4) (h � OOOR N to O O) M N O N LL O Oco a) C) � X Q N CO t0 f0 n O R N M Co O R M M In V- .0 r tL d' it m a N _ 7 U) N r CO O_ N (O R (O N (o O to N C Q r- Cl) r O tD CO (O O N N it 0 CO R R LL) R R M M M R R d' R M 0 C Q m U) t0 R O o M l0 O RM RcyRM CRIVLL) U'L O O .T.r) N O O O O Nt O O Lo R i LL)Q "' O N O N N LO O O R (") N N O O N N N N O O p 0 C Lo R MN NNNNN Z'0 NNONN NQ � O � oO � OdaN0N ,�.p N N 7 Cl) O O L -0 N �N 3 j L U U N N N N C4 N O tb Q N 7 O N c� O ? V N N N > � rn n - � � ooa�im � � a�imm `mn` mm � �O Q > >' aaiTioa� � a�imn� � 7 , O 3 d m � � aQ (n (noozZ00 n4LL (L � � a ¢ � g -»1- -) a (nOZo -, LL a -) City of to Cruces PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRANSIT SECTION INTRADEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Johnson, Public Services director FROM: Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator DATE: October 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Status of the FTA triennial review findings Attached is a letter from FTA providing the status of the findings from the May 2004 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) triennial review. You will note there remain two open findings. The first (Technical D-04' will be able to be closed once,we finalize an interlocal agreement with the New [0exico Department of Transportation that will allow them to provide our Job Access!Reverse Commute (JAIRC) service. We are awaiting documents from NMDOT to complete this. The information to close the second finding 'Procurement D-01) has already been provided to FTA. I have already been advised by Gail Lyssy, our FTA representative, that this finding has been closed, but the information was received too iaie to be included in the at-ached letter. As you can see, all remaining findings have been closed. The letter re-emphasizes that FTA encourages the City to address the advisory findings from the Safety and Security review area. This finding recommends that the City develop a written safei�'y and security plan for the transit service and revise the county's All Hazard Plan to include the role of transit. Please let me know if you have any questrions. Attached: Letter from FTA dated September.29, 2004 r U.S. Department REGION VI 819 Taylor St. Suite 8A36 Arkansas,Louisiana, Fort Worth,TX 76102 of Transportation New Mexico, Oklahoma, 817-978-0550 Federal Transit Texas 817-978-0575(fax) Administration September 29, 2004 . ,t Mr. Mike Bartholomew Transit Director City of Las Cruces P.O.Box 20,000 Las Cruces,New Mexico Re: Status of FY 2004 Triennial Review - Findings and Corrective Actions Dear Mr. Bartholomew: This is in regard to the 2004 Triennial Review of the city of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit. Upon completion of the site visit held on May 11- 12, 2004, the FTA issued a final report to the city of Las Cruces on May 27, 2004. The report reviewed 23 areas and provided a detailed summary of the findings for each area. In a letter dated September 1, 2004, the city of Las Cruces provided documentation to address the outstanding deficiencies as noted in the Triennial Review. Below is a summary of the 23 areas reviewed during the Triennial Review, and the current status of each review area. A more detailed description of the deficiencies that remain open is provided below. Review Area Finding Deficiency Corrective Action Response Date Days/Date Closed 1. Legal ND 2. Financial ND 3. Technical D-04 Inactive grants/ Notify the FTA Region 6 office 90 days untimely closeouts that it has the local match for the job access grants or close these grants. D-05 Excessive delays in Provide the FTA Region 6 office 90 days 9/1/04 project a summary of planned activities implementation for all grants, including close out dates. Include this information in updated milestones and explanations in the MPRs due October 31, 2004. 4. Satisfactory D-03 Inadequate Revise equipment records to 90 days 5/19/2004 Continuing equipment records include all FTA-required Control information including the FTA grant number, location, use and condition, disposition action, and vested title; and submit the updated equipment inventory to the FTA Region 6 office. Review Area Finding Deficiency Corrective Action Response Date Days/Date Closed 5. Maintenance D-06 Facility/equipment Develop and submit to the 90 days 8/31/04 maintenance plan Region 6 office a written lacking or inadequate maintenance plan for federally funded facilities and non- vehicle eq ui ment. 6. Procurement D-01 Policies and Revise procurement policies 90 days procedures not and procedures to fully address evident procedures for FTA-funded procurements and send a copy to the FTA Region 6 office. D-13 No FTA clauses Provide the FTA Region 6 office 90 days 8/16/04 evidence that the exercise of the bus washing option includes all FTA-required clauses. Provide the FTA Region 6 office 90 days 9/1/04 evidence that the new fuel procurement has all FTA- required clauses. 7. Disadvantaged ND Business Enterprise 8. Buy America ND 9. Suspension/ D-04 Certification clauses Provide the FTA Region 6 office 90 days 8/16/04 Debarment not included in agree- evidence that the exercise of ments/procurement the bus washing option includes solicitations the lower-tier debarment/ suspension certification clause. Provide the FTA Region 6 office 90 days 9/1/04 evidence that the new fuel procurement includes the lower-tier debarment/suspension certification clause. 10. Lobbying D-01 Certification clauses Obtain a signed lobbying 90 days 9/1/04 not included in agree- certification from the bus ments/procurement washing contractor when solicitations exercising the contract option. Provide a copy of the signed certification to the FTA Region 6 office. Provide the FTA Region 6 office 90 days 9/1/04 a copy of the signed lobbying certification from the successful bidder for the fuel contract. 11. Planning/POP ND 12. Title VI ND 13. Public Comment ND for Fare and Service Changes 14. Half Fare ND 15. ADA ND 16. Charter Bus ND 17. School Bus ND 18. National Transit ND Database 19. Safety and ND Security AC-01 No safety policy/plan Develop a written system safety program plan and a written Review Area Finding Deficiency Corrective Action Response Date Days/Date Closed AC-09 No security plan system security plan for the transit services. AC-18 Emergency Revise the All Hazard Plan to management plan address the role of transit. lacking 20. Drug-Free ND Workplace 21. Drug and Alcohol D-99 Testing not done on a Change procedures to ensure 90 days 8/10/04 Program random basis random testing is done on a random basis and provide FTA written documentation of the procedures that have been implemented. 22. Equal ND Employment Opportunity 23 ITS Architecture ND Areas of Deficiency • Technical (D-04)—Inactive grants/untimely closeouts—This deficiency is related to the delays in the implementation of the projects funded through NM-37-X002 and NM-37-X010, the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grants. The City of Las Cruces has been working with the Region VI office and the New Mexico Department of Transportation to secure the required matching funds for this grant. In your September 1, 2004 letter, you indicate the City plans to enter into an interlocal agreement with NMDOT to secure a portion of the required matching funds and begin to provide the service as required in the project scope. Upon the completion of the interlocal agreement, this finding will be closed. • Procurement(D-01)—Policies and procedures not evident—The pending ordinance change will adequately address this finding upon approval of the City Council. This finding will be closed upon the notification to FTA of City Council approval. We appreciate the diligence and efficiency in resolving the majority of the deficiencies. We look forward to working with you to resolve the outstanding issues in a timely manner. In regard to Safety and Security, although there is no deficient finding, the City is encouraged to develop a safety and security plan for the transit services and revise the All Hazard Plan to address the role of transit. Do not submit a copy of a safety and security plan to FTA. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please do not hesitate to contact Gail Lyssy, Regional Engineer at(817) 978-0564. Sincerely, Martin F. Kelly, Director / i Office of Operations and Program Management City of las Cruces PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRANSIT SECTION INTRADEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Maryann Ustick, Acting City Manager THRU: Robert Garza, Acting Assistant City Manager THRU: Michael Johnson, Public Services Director FROM: Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator DATE: September 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Preliminary Options for Eastside Center Bus Service Because of renewed interest in providing fixed-route bus service to Eastside Community Center, located at the Corner of Tornillo and Las Cruces streets, the staff at the transit section has been looking at possible options to service this facility. Currently the City is planning to go out bid for an analysis of the entire system route structure. It may be wise to wait until this is done before adding routes to the current route structure. I have outlined what we feel are the best preliminary recommendations. Because an additional route is not budgeted for FY05, these three options involve adding no additional routes or additional operating expense. They are realignments of existing routes so that we can add service to Eastside center by removing service elsewhere. These options are offered with the understanding that the best long-term solution for service to Eastside, without eliminating service elsewhere, can only be accomplished by developing an additional route in the overall service. Option 1 The first option is to remove service on Route 7 from Mulberry/Triviz/Spruce to allow time for that route to serve Eastside (see option 1 map). The advantage of this option is that is retains service to Sun Lanes on Amador and two-way service on Solano at Amador. Sun Lanes is one of the busiest stops for Route 7. The disadvantage is that service to Mulberry and Triviz is eliminated and that any potential connections to businesses and Route 9 at the Spruce Street underpass would be eliminated. With this option Eastside would be service approximately every 40 minutes by Route 7. The bus would arrive there about 30 minutes after leaving the transfer point. You will notice on the map that this option requires the bus to turn north onto Tornillo Street at Eastside Center. We consulted with City Public Works staff on the poor condition of the pavement on Tornillo as heavy buses will quickly further damage what is left of the pavement. Public Works recognizes that repairs will have to be made but they also advise that buses can use that street prior to those repairs being made. Option 2 Again with Route 7, remove inbound service along Solano Street and Amador Avenue. This would remove service from one of the busiest bus stop along that route at Sun Lanes (see option 2 map). With this option we would not have to eliminate the Mulberry/Triviz/Spruce loop of the route. As we strive to improve routes one of the goals is to develop two-way service along major arterials with routes. This option would remove one of the few locations in our service that we actually do have two-way service (the Lohman/Amador couplet between Campo and Solano). The main disadvantage of this option, in staffs opinion is that it would eliminate the inbound service along Amador. Option 3 This option would remove the two-way service on Campo Street between Amador and Spruce, and instead service Mesquite Street on the outbound and Campo Street on the inbound (see Option 3 map). Service along Mesquite Street would go within one block of Eastside Center; it is recommended that if this option were implemented that sidewalk improvements be made along Las Cruces Avenue between Mesquite and Tornillo. The advantages of this would be to provide service along a commercial street that currently does not have a route and this route would get relatively close to East Side. One disadvantage is that a popular two-way service along Campo would go away. Many riders use route one on the outbound to go to City Hall, the Post Office and the Library on the outbound trip and they can catch the same route as it returns inbound. Also, this realignment would not go exactly by Eastside center. Summary These are preliminary recommendations. Because of the pending consultant review of all the routes, we suggest that it may be better to defer action until this study is complete. The need to provide bus service to Eastside Center as well as other important unserved locations, such as the new First Step Clinic at Boutz and Main, will have to be addressed by the consultant. A short term fix at this time will impact service to existing areas and adding service will create a significant unbudgeted expense. If we are to use only the existing routes, staff prefers the first option of providing service to Eastside Center although service to a small part of town would be cut to enable it. Staff feels that truly the best long term solution can only be accomplished by adding another route. We do strongly recommend -- and we will arrange-- a public meeting to present all the options and receive other suggestions. Even poorly used sections of routes may have a loyal clientele that strongly oppose removing bus service along a street where service already exists. A recent example of this was when Route 3 was temporarily removed from south Triviz because of extremely low ridership. Strong concerns from south Triviz residents quickly resulted in a resumption of service to south Triviz. Even though this service was resumed, ridership remains extremely low in this area. Not only may there be opposition to cutting service from an area, but there may be opposition from homeowners (for example along Court Street as shown in Option 1) that do not want the bus to go down their street. We would also like to survey users of the Eastside Center, and other centers, to get a feeling for how many would use the bus to get to Eastside if it were available. Currently there are two individuals using the Dial-A-Ride service to go to meals at Eastside. Because of their situations they would have to continue using Dial-a-Ride even if there were a bus service. We really do not yet have a handle on how many riders would actually use a bus service to get to Eastside Center. I will work with Shelley Modell to accomplish this. If you would like one of the three options to be implemented, I propose the following timeline. First we would conduct a public meeting in early October on the options and survey potential senior citizen users. The results of this would be brought to the Transit Advisory Board at their regular meeting on October 21 for a recommendation. Then a resolution to approve their recommendation would be brought to the next Council meeting (November 1 or 15). What ever recommendation is ultimately approved, it could be implemented by the end of November. Please let me know if you have any questions. m D �c rn ill � x CD �©ONy1oS Dr N yft*4, Z O v oID .,L 0 G) C1 ;u i0 Cts CD W r4k CD _ z o► ..� 0 0 VO (P =r �e CL N CL £L CL m O U r� 0 0 0 Z a� w0W WE � NC�l 0 Q) °y rML0 L13 d O` . ooe- W 50`rP� T ORN1`-O S� AMPO gT w Q ■ MPp���P MV�gERRY AVE FL F CIption 3 with Roi....j. te 1 Mountain View Med 0 z f SCO x ESRucEs PSE N PVE 00���� X MacArthur ES 1p PVE �ONMP X 0 P MPN PVE MVM L0N N O o _ T CTP Burn Lake Routel es.shp ROUTE 1 N Dam.shp Railroad.shp W E ntorstate.shp Geocode.shp s %11 KXC City of las Cruces PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRANSIT SECTION INTRADEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Maryann Ustick,Acting City Manager THRU: Robert Garza,Acting Assistant City Manager THRU: Mike Johnson, Public Services Director FROM: Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator DATE: October 13, 2004 SUBJECT: Cost of Bus Service to the King Farm and Ranch Museum The following information is provided in response to a request from the County for the cost of possible bus service to the King Farm and Ranch Museum (KFRM). Transit staff looked at whether an existing route could possibly provide this service. Route 3, which passes through the intersection at Telshor and University, is the closest route to KFRM; no other route comes close to this location. The distance to KFRM is 1.55 miles one way or 3.1 miles round trip. Staff has concluded that there is not enough time in the route to serve KFRM without significant service cuts elsewhere along the route to compensate for the time that it takes to get to KFRM. We conclude that this service is best accomplished by the creation of the new route. I recommend that it is best to await the outcome of the upcoming transit route analysis before adding a new route just to serve the KFRM. Evaluating service to the KFRM relative to the entire transit network could allow that location to be served more efficiently than to simply add another route with the sole purpose of serving one location. However, I offer the following route suggestions and costs in the event the county wishes to proceed quickly in establishing bus service to KFRM. To better assess service needs, I contacted Mr. Ron Hinton of the KFRM to learn about the days with highest attendance and the times with highest attendance. Mr. Hinton stated that there were approximately 35,000 visitors annually with approximately 10,000— 12,000 of those being Las Cruces area residents. The busiest days are, in order: 1. Monday holidays 2. Saturdays 3. Fridays and Sundays (a tie) 4. Wednesdays (because New Mexico senior citizen residents are admitted for free) I The busiest times are between 9:30 am and 3:30 pm. At 11:00 am and 2:00 pm there are regularly scheduled milking demonstrations that attract visitors. Many public school groups go on field trips to KFRM on weekday mornings, generally between 9:30 am and 11:30 am. Based on this information, I would recommend that limited bus service be provided from one to three days per week. We have not yet had time to test any particular new route, but we feel that the service should connect to the Central Transfer Point and/or Mesilla Valley Mall (a secondary transfer location) with the KFRM. The two transfer points are served by buses every 40 minutes. The details of a new route need to be worked out to make transfers efficient between this new route and the 40-minute pulse times at the two transfer locations. Going to both transfer locations on the same route might not be logistically possible within the 40-minute headway and we may need to focus on connecting with only one of the transfer sites. I recommend the following levels of service for a new route to KFRM: • Service hours generally between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm • If one day of service is offered, it should be Wednesdays to allow public schools access and because this is a free admittance day for senior citizen residents. • If two days of service are offered, the second day should be Saturdays since this is generally the highest attendance day. • If three days of service are offered, the third day should be Fridays as this is also a high attendance day and offers an alternative day for public school field trips. On certain weeks, having a route to KFRM just one weekday could result in some school groups not having any room to get on the bus. To operate this route for even one day a week, we need one more driver. Because this would presumably be a permanent route, we would need, at a minimum, to hire at half-time regular driver. We have enough buses that another route could be provided without having to purchase another vehicle. Based on our most recent National Transit Database (NTD) report (FY2003), I have estimated that the actual cost to the City to run a bus is $14.62 per bus hour. This does not count the cost of a driver or administrative costs. The driver is estimated to cost$15.20 per hour(grade N6A of$11.694/hour plus 30%for benefits.) To run a new route from 9:10 am to 3:50 pm, which coincides with the bus pulses at the Central Transfer Point would require 6.66 hours of bus time and 7.25 hours of driver time. An administrative fee would be necessary to pay for additional costs such as more space in bus schedules and a share of printing costs, new bus stop signs and other passenger amenities, and administrative time. The table below shows the estimated costs for the fixed route bus service based on the figures above. JORft Estimated annual costs for fixed-route service to the Farm and Ranch Museum Cost of cost of Cost/year Days/week bus per driver + 10% of service week week cost/year admin fee 1 $97.37 $110.20 $10,793.64 $11,873.00 2 $194.74 $220.40 $21,587.28 $23,746.01 3 $292.11 $330.60 $32,380.92 $35,619.01 Please note that a half time regular driver would not have enough hours with only one or two days of service to total 20 hours of work each week. The costs in the table represent only what would be needed to provide the new service. It does not include the additional hours that driver would need to earn a minimum of 20 hours per week. We have considerable overtime in the fixed route operation and an additional available hours from a half-time driver could reduce the overtime hours given. One cost not included above is Dial-a-Ride. At a minimum ADA-compliant complementary paratransit service to the KFRM must be provided. Costs are difficult to predict without any history of the number of new rides generated by service to KFRM. It is also difficult to tell whether demand for trips related to KFRM might eventually trigger the need for an additional Dial-a-Ride driver. Currently the cost per ride on Dial-a-Ride is $11.52 based on FY2003 NTD data. A decision would also be required as to whether Dial-a-Ride service to KFRM would be strictly ADA-eligible riders or would include the senior programs riders. Providing senior transportation would potentially create five times the number of Dial-a-Ride trips as would an ADA only service. If there were an average of one Dial-a-Ride trip per day to the museum, the annual cost of the Dial-a-Ride service would range from $599.04 for one day a week to $1797.12 for three days per week. Any transit service agreement for KFRM should include a method for recouping paratransit costs for trips originating or ending at KFRM. The federal formula operating funds (FTA Section 5307) that the City receives is calculated based on the population of the entire urban area, not just the City's population. Technically we should give the county some credit for a portion of the federal subsidy. We do that for the City of Mesilla and the Aggie Shuttle contracts. It would be difficult to determine the county's share of the federal operating assistance since the service area population being added is zero. The subsidy could be applied at the same proportion as to our other routes. Since the federal subsidy is a finite amount and is diluted when more service is added, the end result of using the "proportion"formula is that the City's local share to fund the other routes would increase. In summary • Service to KFRM can only be provided by a new route • Such a route should initially be offer no more than three days a week with about 6.66 hours of service each day • Annual estimated costs to the County for bus service range from $11,873 for one- day-per-week service to $35,619 for three-day-per-week service Aft • Dial-a-ride costs should be recouped at$11.52 per ride for any ride originating or ending at the KFRM • A determination would need to be made if senior program riders would be eligible for trips to KFRM • The County should receive some level of credit for the federal operating subsidy we receive • Staff strongly recommends delaying implementation of any service to KFRM until the pending transit route analysis is completed ON of Las Cruces PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRANSIT SECTION INTRADEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator FROM: Earl Torres,Operations Supervisor DATE: 10/21/2004 SUBJECT: Free Ride Week The Free Ride meek operationally went by with no problems. The extra people who tried our bus service were accommodated with no problems. We passed out approximately 1000 Route Maps. The following is a chart of the daily ridership compared to 2003's same date. 2004 2003 DIFFERENCE MON 2910 2276 +634 TUES 2761 2208 +553 WED 2947 2347 +600 THURS 2769 2341 +428 FRI 2598 2229 +369 SAT 1177 857 +320 TOTAL 15,162 12,258 +2,904 This is a 24% increase in ridership for the week. ClIv of las Cruces Public Meeting Regarding Eastside Community Center City Council Chambers October 6, 2004 M. Bartholomew welcomed everyone for coming and introduced City Councilors, Transit Advisory Board Members and Staff. There were a total of 11 attending the meeting. M. Bartholomew reviewed the Power Point presentation of the transit service options to Eastside Community Center. He stated that he would like to have input from the public after the presentation. After the presentation, one person requested that a meeting at Eastside Community Center be arranged. (this will be done). There will be advertising all over for this meeting. A question was asked about if this is such a problem to provide service to Eastside, can the Center be moved? An explanation was made that this Center was just recently remolded and this is not an option. A comment was made that there is so much concern about accessibility and sidewalks, they need to remember that up until a few years ago, out-houses were still used in this area. One question was asked is there service to Sierra Middle School? (yes there is). A question was asked about the participation if the service does go to Eastside. M. Bartholomew explained that now there are 2 riders who go to the Eastside via the Dial-A- Ride service and they will continue to use that service. It was decided that the meeting at Eastside will take place during the meal hour. An informal vote was taken: those in favor for Option# 1, no votes; for Option#2, 4 votes; and for Option# 3,no votes. M. Bartholomew mentioned there were three phone calls that the Transit Office received. One phone call mentioned that she would like to see service to the Eastside CC., however,nothing was mentioned that she would use the service. The second phone call stated that they did not want to see any changes that would take Route 1 away from the N. Main Street Albertson. (they were advised that this was not being done). She would also strongly prefer that two-way service be kept on Campo Street with Route 1 in the downtown area and that other options be considered for service to Eastside. The third 0 caller supported any kind of bus service to the Eastside area since his family lived next to Eastside and did not have a car; the caller's wife was at this meeting and was one of the members of the public there who favored Option#2. Free Ride Week Numbers A quick first look at the numbers shows: Weekly ridership for: Sept 6-11 10,643 rides (Monday holiday we were closed) Sept 13-18 12,947 rides Sept 20-25 15,162 rides (Free Ride Week) Sept 27-Oct 2 13,601 rides Oct 4-9 13,908 rides Daily information for that week is on the attached memo. Ridership for the month of September was up 6% over the previous September. So far to date for the fiscal year, ridership is identical to last year's ridership. For marketing, we purchased the following: Ten rideshare spots on KVLC $106.50 Ten additional spots on KVLC $106.50 Twenty-seven spots on KMVR $230.04 Radio remote on KMVR $500 + tax News paper ads in the Las Cruces Sun News, Bulletin and Roundup approximately $500 Submitted by Mike Bartholomew 10/21/04 City of Las Cruces Public Meeting Eastside Community Center October 14, 2004 M. Bartholomew introduced the translator Magdalena Giron. She explained the procedure for translating and there was one person who requested this service. M. Bartholomew also introduced staff, and sent Councillor Frietz's regrets for not being able to attending today's meeting. There were a total of 14 attending the meeting. M. Bartholomew reviewed the Power Point presentation regarding transit service options to Eastside Community Center. After the presentation he asked for input from the attendees. Having no questions he proceeded to ask the following questions. Who would use the service to Eastside C. C. (no hands). Where there any property owners present who owned property in the area. (no hands). Do you know of anyone who would use the service? (no hands). There was an individual who liked the idea of getting the bus there even though she could not use the service. She also was concerned about losing the two way service on Campo Street. Also, there was a comment of liking the Option#2. This individual was the previous meeting at the Council Chambers where she also expressed that she favored this option. A question was asked if the bus went by Mesquite and Mulberry. (it does not). One person wanted to know if the bus went by Solano and Mulberry. (it does). Another person wanted to know if the bus went close to Smith Ave. (south of Lohman between Solano and Walnut) (it does not). One commented that it would take too long to get to Eastside CC if it involved transferring from one route to another. After the meeting, Bill Strauss mentioned that even though the group was not that responsive, they deeply appreciated the gesture of Transit going to Eastside CC to speak with them as users there feel often overlooked.