HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2019 0306 CCSA REG ITEM 09BCITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of 3/6/2019
ACTION No comments
provided.
BY B.Garza
B. Consider Providing Comments on Possible Unmet Transit Needs to the Ventura
County Transportation Commission and Receive Report on Unmet Transit Needs
Findings and Goals. Staff Recommendation: Provide comments and direct staff
to forward them to VCTC, prior to the end of the public comment period.
Item: 9.B.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Shaun Kroes, Program Manager
DATE: 3/6/2019 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Providing Comments on Possible Unmet Transit Needs to the
Ventura County Transportation Commission and Receive Report on
Unmet Transit Needs Findings and Goals
SUMMARY
On April 18, 2002, the City Council directed staff to prepare an annual report on the City’s
transit performance regarding the findings and goals that the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC) adopts each year at the conclusion of the Unmet
Transit Needs process. Attachment 1 serves as this year’s annual report on the City’s
performance. An addition to the annual report is Attachment 1A, the Transit Ridership &
Statistics Report – Fiscal Year 2017/18, which provides further details about transit use
and expenditures. The City Council is being asked to review the annual report, provide
comments, and direct staff to forward the comments to VCTC.
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2013, VCTC approved new Unmet Transit Needs definitions and adjusted
its public participation input program. This revision was in response to VCTC’s Regional
Transit Study as well as the impacts of SB 716 and SB 203 (both of which became
effective July 1, 2014). The revised definitions and public participation input program are
detailed in Attachment 2 of this report.
California Public Utilities Code (PUC) 99401.5(c) requires that VCTC hold at least one
public hearing pursuant to PUC Section 99238.5 to solicit comments on Unmet Transit
Needs that may exist within the jurisdictions and that may be reasonable to meet by
establishing or contracting for new public transportation, or specialized transportation, or by
expanding existing services. All Unmet Transit Needs that are reasonable to meet must be
funded before any allocation is made from TDA funds to the cities/county for streets and
roads pursuant to PUC 99401.5(e). Effective July 1, 2014, the remaining Ventura County
Item: 9.B.
250
Honorable City Council
3/6/2019, Regular Meeting
Page 2
cities that this is applicable to are Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark and Santa Paula (all cities
with a population under 100,000 and not a member of the Gold Coast Transit District). On
June 11, 2018, legislation allowed the City of Thousand Oaks to spend TDA money on
local streets, which means it now returns to the Unmet Transit Needs process. Although
there are now a limited number of cities that are affected by PUC 99401.5(e), VCTC must
perform a countywide Unmet Transit Needs process. VCTC may identify an Unmet Transit
Need in a service area not affected by PUC 99401.5(e) (such as Gold Coast Transit or the
City of Simi Valley); however, it has no ability to require that Unmet Transit Needs be
implemented because the agency is already committing 100% of its TDA funding for
existing transit services.
DISCUSSION
On February 1, 2019, VCTC held its annual public hearing on Unmet Transit Needs at
Camarillo City Hall, during its regular Commission meeting. Although no public comments
were given at the meeting, staff at VCTC noted that they had received 125 comments
submitted prior to the meeting. VCTC also holds community meetings where the public
can meet with VCTC staff to provide comments. The City hosted this year’s first
community meeting at the Moorpark Civic Center on January 9, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Attachment 3 provides a summary of comments made at the January 9 meeting.
The public can also submit written comments through VCTC’s online Unmet Transit Needs
survey, through email, telephone, or mail. Comments were due to VCTC by February 11,
2019; however, VCTC staff confirmed that they will still accept any comments that City
Council may request to submit during tonight’s meeting. Information on how to submit
comments is provided on Attachment 4. Staff advertised the comment period in the City
transit buses and on the City website. The public was encouraged to submit their
comments to VCTC. Additionally, information about the City Council’s consideration of
Unmet Transit Needs at its March 6, 2019 meeting was distributed.
According to the PUC, VCTC must decide, by adopting a resolution, either that:
1. There are no unmet transit needs;
2. There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet; or,
3. There are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet.
The resolution must include information that provides the basis for VCTC’s decision.
Prior to VCTC’s FY 2016/17 Transit Needs Assessment, VCTC would include an extensive
list of transit goals that were not considered an Unmet Transit Need, based on comments
submitted by the public. Goals that were applicable to Moorpark would be included in the
251
Honorable City Council
3/6/2019, Regular Meeting
Page 3
City’s Report of Performance. The VCTC reports since then no longer include a list of
goals. Consequently, the City’s Report of Performance provides a general report of transit
services in Moorpark. The report also addresses any Moorpark-specific comments made
during VCTC’s Unmet Transit Needs process.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide comments and direct staff to forward them to VCTC, prior to the end of the public
comment period.
Attachment 1 – Report of Performance
Attachment 1A -Transit Ridership & Statistics Report – Fiscal Year 2017/18
Attachment 2 – Unmet Needs Definition
Attachment 3 – Community Meeting Summary
Attachment 4 – Unmet Transit Needs Flyer
252
Attachment 1
Report of Performance
2019/20 Unmet Transit Needs
Moorpark City Transit
Moorpark City Transit FY 2017/18 Ridership Information:
• The City implemented route adjustments and schedule changes effective
August 7, 2017 after completing a year-long transit route evaluation study.
The hours of service are 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for Route 1, and 6:15 a.m.
to 5:54 p.m. on Route 2. Days of service are Monday through Friday. In
FY 2017/18, ridership decreased 12.60% from 58,028 trips in FY 2016/17
to 50,714 trips in FY 2017/18.
• Senior and disabled travel on Moorpark City Transit buses also decreased
12.74% in FY 2017/18 (from 14,228 trips to 12,415 trips). Approximately
24% of all passengers on the buses are seniors/disabled.
• In FY 2017/18 Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services (both Local and InterCity
services) provided 6,357 trips. This is an increase of 33.61% compared to
4,758 trips in FY 2016/17. Between the two services, trips on the Local
DAR service decreased 4.66% (from 1,608 to 1,533) whereas InterCity
trips increased 53.14% (from 3,150 to 4,824).
• The City’s VCTC audited farebox ratio (including Moorpark City Transit,
Beach Bus, and Dial-A-Ride services) was calculated at 24.97% for FY
2017/18. The farebox ratio is attributed to the City’s use of locally
generated developer fees used as a “Route Guarantee” to provide transit
services. Without the contribution, the City’s farebox ratio would be
6.39%, well below the 20% requirement.
See Attachment 1A for a more detailed report of transit services provided in FY
2017/18.
253
Page 2
Findings adopted by VCTC May 11, 2018.
There are no Unmet Transit Needs that are reasonable to meet.
During the Unmet Transit Needs process, VCTC presented Findings; some of which
included or involved transit service in Moorpark. Those Findings are provided below,
with a brief response. In some instances, the response is directly from VCTC.
Comment/Service Request Response
Service between Fillmore and Moorpark
VCTC Response:
Demand expressed for …service
expansions has been limited and in this
case staff is recommending continued
monitoring of the ridership demand before
pursuing extensive analysis of cost-
effectiveness. There has been repetitive
demand expressed over the last few years
regarding service to, from, and throughout
…Fillmore-Moorpark…, therefore staff
recommends that these services in
particular are analyzed for feasibility in the
future.
Moorpark Staff Comments:
The City supports the concept of transit
service between Fillmore and Moorpark
and is happy to work with VCTC and City of
Fillmore on potential transfer points and
times. Based upon comments submitted
from the public; this appears to be demand
from Fillmore residents, not Moorpark
residents. Funding for the transit service
should be from Fillmore/VCTC.
254
Page 3
Out of 163 individual comments submitted, seven comments included service
suggestions/requests for Moorpark City Transit. The comments are provided below.
Responses to each comment have been provided as well.
Comment/Service Request Response
Would like additional Moorpark City
Transit Service.
Current transit service routes are based on
ridership usage and available funding.
Would like service from Moorpark to other
destinations like the beach, Ojai and LA
Moorpark bus service is limited to travel
within the City. During the summer, the
City does offer bus service to Zuma Beach,
3 times a week (Tuesdays – Thursdays).
VCTC provides inter-city bus service.
Would like additional buses on MCT. Current transit service routes are based on
ridership usage and available funding.
Would like additional frequency to
Moorpark College and an additional stop.
Current transit service routes are based on
ridership usage and available funding.
There is potential to add a secondary bus
stop at Moorpark College; however,
additional stops would also increase the
overall trip length.
Would like an additional Moorpark bus
stop
Bus stop location not identified.
Would like benches at Moorpark stops
and service to the fair.
Staff is in the process of relocating a couple
of bus shelters/benches to existing bus
stops.
The City does not provide service to the
County Fair due to lack of demand.
Would like better service from Moorpark
to medical facilities and the fair.
Moorpark buses do have stops nearby local
medical facilities in Moorpark. For travel to
medical facilities outside of the City, VCTC
intercity service would be required.
The City does not provide service to the
County Fair due to lack of demand.
Would like vouchers to senior facilities,
rate guides and information on how to
ride.
Passengers age 65 and older can ride for
free on Moorpark City transit. Both routes
provide service to the Moorpark Active
Adult Center. The City provides a Ride
Guide that includes rate information and
information on how to ride the bus.
255
___________________________________________________________________________
TO: Troy Brown, City Manager
FROM: Shaun Kroes, Program Manager
DATE: December 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Transit Ridership & Statistics Report – Fiscal Year 2017/18
______________________________________________________________________
The tables below present a summary view of Moorpark City Transit operations in the
City for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017/18. On August 7, 2017, the City implemented route and
schedule changes for the fixed route (bus) service. The changes were based on a year-
long transit evaluation study performed by Nelson/Nygaard. The changes were
intended to streamline the routes and schedules, in an attempt to decrease passenger
confusion and increase ridership. The bus service operates Monday through Friday,
6:15 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services operate 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday1. All information reported under “Historical Trends” sections of
the report exclude demonstration service costs and ridership that occurred FY 2013/14
through FY 2015/16, in order to ensure an appropriate comparison amongst the years.
Also, note that the first fiscal year of 2010/11 for “Historical Trends” does not indicate
the first year any transit service began. It only functions to serve as a base year for
comparison.
1 Saturday DAR service (8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) began in FY 2018/19.
CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM Attachment 1A
256
Page 2
Moorpark City Transit Fixed Route - Bus Activity and Regional Agency
Reimbursements.
Jun
RIDERSHIP:
CASH
FARES
TICKETS,
TOKENS
VCTC Passes
& Transfers
TOTALS
MONTH
YEAR
AGO
YTD
2017-18
Last Year
YTD
Regular Fare (Student/Adul 1,895 209 148 2,252 2,448 36,498 41,844
1,153 1,072 12,415 14,228
201 189 1,801 1,956
3,606 3,709 50,714 58,028
Average Riders Per Day 100 11 8 190 169 201 225
REVENUE: Cash Fares Prepaid
Fares $1,874 $70 $1,944
Year Ago $2,331 $150 $2,481
YTD Total $31,897 $4,135
$40.50 $9.77 $297.69 $399.77
$1,984.27 $2,490.85 $36,330.06 $41,470.72
19 22 252 258
25.43 22.26
$53.10 $51.96
$1,350.11 $1,156.58
$4,541.87 $4,814.46 $58,032.69 $52,336.51
$25,652.08 $25,444.81 $314,145.85 $300,006.58
$3,742.33 $9,031.90 $101,544.08 $131,671.23
$33,936.28 $39,291.17 $473,722.62 $484,014.32
5.85% 6.34% 7.67% 8.57%
$9.41 $10.59 $9.34 $8.34Cost Per Passenger
CNG Fuel
Contract Expense
Farebox Ratio
Hourly Rate
Daily Rate
Operations Cost
Preventive Maintenance
Daily Hours
Reimbursements (Senior Nutrition, VCTC Fares) & Adjustments
Total Route Systems Revenue
Senior, Disabled & PCAs - Free
Children 5 & under - Free
Service Days
Total Ridership
MOORPARK CITY TRANSIT TOTALS &
COMPARISONS
The table above provides ridership and cost information for the City’s bus service
(Route 1 and Route 2) for FY 2017/18 and FY 2016/17. Total ridership decreased
12.60% in FY 2017/18 (50,714 trips) compared to FY 2016/17 (58,028). It is interesting
to note that Senior and Disabled ridership also decreased 12.74%. In FY 2016/17,
Senior and Disabled ridership increased 42.92% compared to FY 2015/16. Significant
increases in Senior and Disabled ridership had been occurring the prior couple of fiscal
years after the City implemented free bus service for Seniors and Disabled beginning
August 1, 2015. The free service was in response to a rate increase for the City’s DAR
services. The decrease in Senior and Disabled ridership is attributed to the route
adjustments implemented August 7, 2017, which included removing bus service from
sections of Mountain Trail Street, Countrywood Drive, Christian Barrett Drive Spring
Road, Walnut Creek Road, as well as removal of direct services into private shopping
centers, such as Moorpark Marketplace. Ridership for Students/Adults also decreased
12.78% (FY 2017/18 compared to FY 2016/17); however, ridership for Students/Adults
had already been decreasing the past few years. The changes to the transit service in
FY 2017/18 do not appear to have helped to reduce the lost ridership.
257
Page 3
Contract expenses decreased slightly by 2.13% in FY 2017/18 ($473,722.62) compared
to FY 2016/17 ($484,014.32). The decrease in costs is attributed to a significant
reduction in vehicle maintenance costs, which decreased 22.88% in FY 2017/18
($101,544.08) compared to FY 2016/17 ($131,671.23). Operational and fuel costs
combined increased 5.63% in FY 2017/18 ($372,178.54) compared to FY 2016/17
($352,343.09).
The FY 2017/18 farebox ratio was 7.67% compared to 8.57% in FY 2016/17. For
purposes of this transit report, the farebox ratio factors in operational costs (bus
operations and fuel) and preventive maintenance. The farebox ratio does not factor in
overhead expenditures related to transit that are included in the City’s official TDA audit.
The farebox ratio is below the 20% farebox ratio requirement for TDA; however, the
majority of bus operations is paid for with local TSM money; thereby increasing the
City’s farebox ratio above the 20% requirement for purposes of TDA. In FY 2017/18,
the City used approximately $200,509.28 in TSM money (or 42.33% of total bus
operation expenses). The remaining 57.67% is covered by fares, TDA, and FTA funds.
At the time of this report, the City’s draft official TDA farebox ratio for FY 2017/18 was
24.97%, above the 20.00% farebox ratio requirement.
Moorpark City Transit Fixed Route – Historical Trends
The chart above provides operation cost (including fuel), ridership, and fare trends from
FY 2010/11 through FY 2017/18 (maintenance costs are excluded from this chart). FY
2012/13 is when the City of Thousand Oaks (Thousand Oaks) began providing services
for the City after the City’s previous contractor (Coach America) terminated its contract
due to bankruptcy. Operational costs increased 56.11% in FY 2012/13 ($286,633)
compared to FY 2011/12 ($183,612). Operational costs have continued to increase
every year, with FY 2017/18 costs ($372,179) having increased 29.85% compared to
258
Page 4
FY 2012/13 ($286,633). While costs have increased over the years, ridership has
decreased approximately 18.10% between FY 2017/18 (50,714 trips) and FY 2012/13
(61,922). Revenue (fares) collected has also decreased 35.42% between FY 2017/18
($36,330) and FY 2012/13 ($56,260). When comparing the highest year of collected
revenue (FY 2011/12; $61,869 collected) and the lowest year of collected revenue (FY
2017/18; $36,330), revenue has decreased 41.28%. Revenue decreases are attributed
to a couple of factors. One is beginning in the middle of FY 2011/12, transit operators in
Ventura County established a free transfer program with the Ventura County
Transportation Commission (VCTC). Prior to implementation, passengers transferring
from a VCTC bus to a City bus had to pay the City fare (and vice-versa). While
providing the free transfer program has likely increased the number of passengers using
the various transit services, it has also meant fewer fares from passengers who would
have used the service regardless of the payment requirement. The City also eliminated
fares for Seniors and Disabled (effective August 1, 2015). Additionally, the overall
reduction in trips provided (fewer people means less revenue collected).
The chart above provides preventive maintenance trends from FY 2010/11 through FY
2017/18. Preventive maintenance costs have remained relatively consistent throughout
the years, even with two different contractors providing the services (Coach America
followed by Thousand Oaks). Preventive maintenance costs in FY 2017/18 were
$101,544. This is a 22.88% decrease compared to FY 2016/17, when costs were
$131,671.
259
Page 5
Dial-A-Ride – ADA Paratransit/Senior Dial-A-Ride Programs.
Month
June
Number
of Trips
Unduplicated
Riders
Fares Paid by
Passenger Program Cost Mileage Passengers
July 2017 86 19 $172.00 $2,832.98 248 86
Aug. 2017 130 15 $260.00 $4,301.70 423 130
Sept. 2017 149 21 $300.00 $4,944.78 514 150
Oct. 2017 141 17 $282.00 $4,570.01 557 141
Nov. 2017 130 20 $260.00 $4,483.76 416 136
Dec. 2017 89 17 $178.00 $2,858.08 306 91
Jan. 2018 124 19 $252.00 $4,164.00 436 129
Feb. 2018 126 21 $252.00 $4,109.62 400 126
Mar. 2018 128 13 $256.00 $4,168.34 387 128
Apr. 2018 113 17 $226.00 $3,699.00 405 113
May 2018 152 20 $304.00 $4,967.16 473 152
June 2018 165 17 $330.00 $5,286.51 535 165
YTD Total 1,533 51 $3,072.00 $50,385.94 5,100 1,547
Year Ago Month 151 22 $302.00 $4,506.24 501 153
Year Ago YTD 1,608 71 $3,221.50 $49,592.32 5,827 1,692
Local Moorpark ADA Paratransit/Senior Dial-A-Ride
The table above provides ridership information for the City’s Local (travel within
Moorpark) services for Seniors (65 years and older) and ADA passengers. The
“Number of Trips” column includes paying passengers (registered passengers and their
guests). The “Passengers” column includes registered passengers, their guests, and
personal care attendants (PCA). A PCA does not pay fare when traveling on DAR.
Ridership decreased 4.66% in FY 2017/18 (1,533 trips) compared to FY 2016/17
(1,608). The number of “Unduplicated Riders” also decreased 28.17%. Unduplicated
Riders indicate individual people who have used the service at some point during the
fiscal year. In FY 2017/18, 51 individuals used the service, compared to 71 individuals
in FY 2016/17.
260
Page 6
ECTA Dial-A-Ride – ADA and Senior Ridership to Neighboring Cities
Month
June
Number
of Trips
Unduplicated
Riders
Fares Paid by
Passenger Program Cost Mileage Passengers Seniors
July 2017 312 24 $1,558.75 $11,897.90 3,996 320 122
Aug. 2017 396 31 $1,978.75 $13,861.54 5,713 402 120
Sept. 2017 358 34 $1,805.00 $14,424.22 5,000 374 107
Oct. 2017 394 34 $2,060.00 $14,783.04 5,741 428 101
Nov. 2017 473 33 $2,338.75 $18,438.35 6,254 486 104
Dec. 2017 450 28 $2,223.75 $16,790.18 6,016 457 150
Jan. 2018 459 34 $2,246.25 $18,338.79 6,233 463 106
Feb. 2018 371 29 $1,840.00 $14,658.75 5,085 375 137
Mar. 2018 363 27 $1,786.25 $13,313.78 4,309 367 150
Apr. 2018 351 27 $1,743.75 $14,003.22 4,557 353 104
May 2018 410 26 $2,040.00 $15,726.04 5,650 412 143
June 2018 487 29 $2,416.25 $18,904.74 6,665 489 127
YTD Total 4,824 87 $24,037.50 $185,140.55 65,219 4,926 1,471
Year Ago Month 244 35 $1,221.25 $9,522.87 2,965 248 98
Year Ago YTD 3,150 107 $15,951.25 $131,512.22 42,738 3,405 891
ECTA Service (InterCity ADA Paratransit/Senior Dial-A-Ride)
The table above provides information on ridership on the East County Transit Alliance
(ECTA) InterCity (travel outside of Moorpark) for Senior and ADA DAR services.
Ridership increased 53.14% in FY 2017/18 (4,824 trips) compared to FY 2016/17
(3,150) for overall ridership (Seniors and ADA). The number of Senior trips provided in
FY 2017/18 (1,471) increased 65.10% compared to FY 2016/17 (891). Similar to Local
trips, the number of individual Riders using the program decreased 18.69% during the
same time period. The increased number of trips and decrease in Riders using the
service raised the number of trips per Rider from 29 per Rider in FY 16/17 to 55 per
Rider in FY 17/18. Program costs for the ECTA InterCity service increased 40.78% in
FY 2017/18.
Combined Dial-A-Ride – Local ADA Paratransit/Senior Dial-A-Ride and ECTA InterCity
Services.
Month
Jun
Number
of Trips
Unduplicated
Riders
Fares Paid by
Passenger Program Cost Mileage Passengers Seniors
City Senior/ADA 165 17 $330.00 $5,286.51 535 165 n/a
ECTA InterCity 487 29 $2,416.25 $18,904.74 6,665 489 127
Month Total 652 46 $2,746.25 $24,191.25 7,200 654 127
YTD Total 6,357 138 $27,109.50 $235,526.49 70,319 6,473 1,471
Year Ago Month 395 57 $1,523.25 $14,029.11 3,466 401 98
Year Ago YTD 4,758 178 $19,172.75 $181,104.54 48,565 5,097 891
Paratransit Dial-A-Ride Services Combined
The table above combines Local and InterCity service ridership and costs for FY
2017/18. In FY 2017/18, the number of trips provided increased 33.61% compared to
FY 2016/17 Overall program costs increased 30.05% during the same period. The
261
Page 7
farebox for FY 2017/18 was 11.51%. The farebox ratio requirements for specialized
Senior and ADA Paratransit Dial-A-Ride services is 10%.
Moorpark Dial-A-Ride Services – Historical Trends
The chart above provides costs, passenger, and fare trends from FY 2010/11 through
FY 2017/18. FY 2012/13 is when Thousand Oaks began providing services for the City
after Coach America terminated its contract due to bankruptcy. Costs initially
decreased 15.31% in FY 2012/13 ($83,332) compared to FY 2011/12 ($98,399) but
have increased overtime. Part of the increase is due in part to the increase in demand
for service. Ridership has increased 192.10% from FY 2010/11 to FY 2017/18.
262
Page 8
The chart above provides passenger and fare trends since 2010/11. The spike in fares
in FY 2015/16 was due to a fare increases that took effect August 1, 2015. Local fare
increased from $1.50 per trip to $2.00 per trip and InterCity fare increased from $3.00
per trip and $4.50 per trip (depending on the destination) to a flat $5.00 per trip. The
fare increase was partially related to the City joining the East County Transit Alliance
(ECTA), which added the City of Simi Valley and County of Ventura to Moorpark and
Thousand Oaks’ existing InterCity ADA DAR program and added InterCity Senior DAR
for all agencies. While the City initially started to see a decrease in the number of
passengers traveling on DAR services after joining ECTA, ridership rebounded in FY
2017/18.
263
Page 9
The chart above provides a comparison of the per trip cost for passengers on the DAR
services between FY 2010/11 and FY 2017/18. Passengers include both paying riders
as well as any PCAs that do not pay a fare. Per trip costs have increased and
decreased over the years depending on the transit operator and the contracted method
of payment. In the past, the City has either paid on a per-revenue hour basis, per
trip/per mile basis, or per-trip only basis. Currently, the City pays a per-passenger rate
for Local travel. For ECTA service, all costs are calculated on a monthly basis and then
divided by total number of passengers for the month. The per-passenger rate is then
charged to each respective agency.
The lowest per-passenger rate during the historical time period provided above was in
FY 2012/13, at $26.32 per passenger. This was also the fiscal year with the lowest total
cost of $83,332. The number of non-paying passengers can impact the per passenger
rate (PCAs do not pay a fare). For example, in FY 2016/17, 6.67% (or 339 passengers)
didn’t pay a fare. The number of non-paying passengers decreased to 116 in FY
2017/18, or 1.79% of passengers.
The City also offers an unlimited pass for InterCity travel for $140 per month. For a
comparison, an individual who uses DAR two times a day and travels for 20 days would
pay $200 if paying the standard fare of $5.00 per trip. That same passenger would only
pay $140 for the same number of trips if he/she uses the monthly pass (a 30%
discount). The City started to provide this pass in FY 2015/16 as a compromise for
passengers who were using InterCity DAR daily when rates increased from $3.00 per
trip to $5.00 per trip. Use of the pass is extremely limited, with only one to two people
currently using the pass.
264
Page 10
Moorpark Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride Services Combined
Jun CITY
BUS
DAR
City
ECTA
InterCity
TOTAL
MONTH
YEAR
AGO YTD Last Year
YTD
Service
Ridership 3,606 165 489 4,260 4,110 57,187 63,125
Farebox
Revenue $1,984 $330 $2,416 $4,731 $4,014 $63,440 $60,643
Contract Expense $33,936 $5,287 $18,905 $58,128 $53,320 $709,249 $665,119
Farebox Ratios 5.85% 6.24% 12.78% 8.14% 7.53% 8.94% 9.12%
Cost Per Passenger $9.41 $32.04 $38.66 $13.64 $12.97 $12.40 $10.54
MOORPARK CITY TRANSIT
ROUTE BUS & DIAL A RIDE COMBINED COMPARISONS
The combined trips provided for bus, DAR City (Local), and ECTA InterCity services
totaled 57,187 in FY 2017/18. This is a decrease of 9.41% compared to FY 2016/17,
when 63,125 trips were provided. The decrease in overall ridership is attributed to the
bus service, which overwhelmed the increase in DAR ridership. Contract expenditures
for all services increased 6.63% during the same time period. Revenues increased
4.61%% in FY 2017/18 compared to FY 2016/17. The increase in revenue is attributed
to the DAR service, which saw an increase of 41.40% in revenue; whereas the bus
service saw revenue decrease 12.39%.
The farebox ratio reported in the table above is 8.94%, slightly higher than last year’s
7.53%. Additional expenditures not included in the tables above include staff time, cost
plan allocations, miscellaneous supplies, etc. The City pays for the majority of transit
operations with TSM funds, which keeps the City’s official TDA farebox ratio above 20%
(the FY 2017/18 draft audited number was 24.97%); therefore, the City is not in danger
of losing its TDA revenue for having an “un-official” farebox ratio below 20%. Had the
City not used TSM funding as a “Route Guarantee”, the City’s overall farebox ratio
would have been 6.39%.
265
Page 11
Metrolink – Ventura County Line
Based on Metrolink ridership information provided by VCTC, it appears as though the
average daily boardings (inbound and outbound) involving passengers using a station
located in Ventura County along the Ventura County Line decreased 5.11% in FY
2017/18 compared to FY 2016/17.
The Moorpark Metrolink Station continues to average as second most utilized station in
Ventura County. Simi Valley is the most utilized. The remaining stations in Ventura
County are Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura. The Moorpark Station also tends to
average more passengers than the Van Nuys and Burbank Airport Stations.
C: Sean Corrigan, City Engineer/PW Director
266
ATTACHMENT 2
“UNMET TRANSIT NEED”
Public transportation services identified by the public with sufficient broad-based community support that
have not been funded or implemented. Unmet transit needs identified in a government-approved plan
meet the definition of an unmet transit need. Sufficient broad-based community support means that
persons who will likely use the service on a routine basis demonstrate support: at least 15 requests for
general public service and 10 requests for disabled service.
Includes:
Public transit services not currently provided to reach employment, medical assistance, shop for
food or clothing, to obtain social services such as health care, county welfare programs and
education programs. Service must be needed by and benefit the general public.
Service expansions including new routes, significant modifications to existing routes, and major
increases in service hours and frequency
Excludes:
Operational changes such as minor route changes, bus stop changes, or changes in schedule
Requests for extended hour (less than one (1) hour)
Service for groups or individuals that is not needed by or will not benefit the general public
Comments about vehicles, facilities, driver performance and transit organizational structure
Requests for better coordination
Requests for reduced fares and changes to fare restrictions
Improvements funded or scheduled for implementation in the following year
Future transportation needs
Duplication or replacement of existing service
“REASONABLE TO MEET”
Outcome Definitions Measures & Criterias
Equity
The proposed service will not cause reductions in existing
transit services that have an equal or higher priority
Measures: Vehicle revenue service hours
and revenue service miles. Criteria: Transit
vehicle service hours and miles will not be
reduced on existing routes to fund the
proposed service
Timing The proposed service is in response to an existing rather
than future transit need
Criteria: Same as definition that proposed
service is in response to an existing rather
than future transit need; based on public
input
Feasibility The proposed service can be provided with the existing
fleet or under contract to a private provider
Measure: Vehicle spare ratio: Transit
system must be able to maintain FTA’s
spare ratio requirement of 20% (buses in
peak service divided by the total bus fleet
cannot fall below 20%). If less than 20%, can
additional buses be obtained (purchased or
267
Outcome Definitions Measures & Criterias
leased) or can service be provided under
contract to a private provider?
Feasibility There are adequate roadways to safely accommodate
transit vehicles
Measure & Criteria: Route inspection to
determine adequacy of infrastructure to
accommodate transit vehicles and
passengers.
Cost Effectiveness
The proposed service will not unduly affect the operator’s
ability to maintain the required passenger fare ratio for its
system as a whole
Measure: Total estimate annual passenger
fare revenue divided by total annual
operating cost (the entire service including
the proposed service) Criteria: fare
revenue/operating cost cannot fall below the
operator’s required passenger fare ratio.
Cost Effectiveness
The proposed service will meet the scheduled passenger
fare ratio standards described in Attachment A Measures and criteria in Attachment A.
Service
Effectiveness
Estimated passengers per hour for the proposed service
will not be less than the system-wide average after three
years.
Measure: Passengers per hour. Criteria:
Projected passengers per hour for the
proposed service is not less than 70% of the
system-wide average (without the proposed
service) at the end of 12 month of service,
85% at the end of 24 months of service, and
100% at the end of 36 months of service.
PASSENGER FARE RATIOS
It is desirable for all proposed transit services in urban areas to achieve a 20% passenger fare ratio by
the end of the third year of operation. A passenger fare ratio of 10% is desired for special services (i.e.,
elderly and disabled) and rural area services*. More detailed passenger fare ration standards, which will
be used to evaluate services as they are proposed and implemented, are described below. Transit
service both urban and rural areas, per state law, may obtain an “intermediate” passenger fare ratio.
Urban Service Rural
Service
Recommended Action
New Service Performance Criteria: End of Twelve Months
Less than 6% Less than 3% Provider may discontinue service
6% or more 3% or more Provider will continue service, with modifications if needed
268
New Service Performance Criteria: End of Twenty-four Months
Less than 10% Less than 5% Provider may discontinue service
10% or more 5% or more Provider will continue service, with modifications if needed
New Service Performance Criteria: End of Thirty-Six Months **
Less than 15% Less than 7% Provider may discontinue service
15% to 19% 7% to 9% Provider may consider modifying and continue service
20% or more 10% or more Provider will continue service, with modifications if needed
*Per statute the VCTC may establish a lower fare for community transit (dial-a-ride) services.
**A review will take place after 30 months to develop a preliminary determination regarding the
discontinuation of proposed services
269
Attachment 3
Community Meeting Summary
Meeting Date: January 9, 2019
• Four members of the public attended (this was better than last year’s one
participant). One individual lives in Thousand Oaks; the other three live in
Moorpark.
• The Thousand Oaks resident requested additional Intercity service between
Thousand Oaks and Woodland Hills, as well as other suggested improvements
to the Intercity bus routes.
• The residents in Moorpark commented that they would like to see better
connections between Moorpark’s routes and the VCTC bus service. They live in
the apartment complexes along Moorpark Avenue, south of Los Angeles
Avenue. They stated the walk from the apartment complexes to High Street
(where VCTC’s bus services are) takes about 25 – 30 minutes. (Google maps
records it as a 17 minute walk; however, two of the three individuals were older,
one being 72). Aside from the connectivity issue, most of their comments were
specific to travel requests to other cities (Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks,
Camarillo). - Participants were informed about the City’s Senior DAR program, which they
didn’t know about and were excited to know existed. One of the individuals
enrolled in the program at the meeting. All three members were Spanish
speaking so Vera performed the translation services. - The three residents had also found out about the meeting about the event
from the City’s Facebook page, so our social media outreach efforts helped
to increase participation.
• During the meeting one attendee requested additional service along the Intercity
101 route connecting to Woodland Hills.
• At the time of this summary, a second community meeting was held in Camarillo.
Two members from the public attended the event.
270
SHARE YOUR IDEAS FOR NEW SERVICE
WITH US!
KNOW A MISSING LINK?
WOULD A NEW BUS ROUTE HELP?
Contact Us:
1-800-438-1112
cgrasty@goventura.org
www.goventura.org
OR TELL US IN PERSON:
February 1, 2019, 9:00 am at Camarillo City Hall, Council Chambers
Room, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo (Public Hearing)
March 6, 2019, 6:30 pm at Moorpark Civic Center, Council Chambers,
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark
Written public comments will continue to be collected until February 11,
2019
.
Attachment 4
271
¡COMPARTA SUS IDEAS PARA EL NUEVO
SERVICIO CON NOSOTROS!
¿USTED SABE DE UN DESAJUSTE EN SERVICIO?
¿LE AYUDARÍA UNA NUEVA RUTA DE AUTOBÚS?
Contáctenos:
1-800-438-1112
cgrasty@goventura.org
www.goventura.org
DIGANOS EN PERSONA:
1 de febrero del 2019, 9:00 am, Camarillo City Hall, Council Chambers
Room, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo (Audencia Pública)
6 de marzo del 2019, 6:30 pm, Moorpark Civic Center, Council
Chambers, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark
Los comentarios por escrito del público serán recolectados hasta el 11 de
febrero del 2019.
272