DRAFT PASSENGER TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS

Transcription

1 DRAFT PASSENGER TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS PREPARED BY: SOUTHEAST IOWA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 2008

2 RESOLUTION #X-2008 INTRODUCED BY: SEIRPC INTENT: ACCEPT AND RECEIVE FY2009 FY2012 PTDP WHEREAS, The Passenger Transit Development Plan is a regional passenger transportation plan that is meant to facilitate transportation coordination and efficient use of public transportation funding; and WHEREAS, The Passenger Transit Development Plan is required plan by the Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Public Transit to maintain eligible for public transit funding and to justify applications for public transit funding; and WHEREAS, The planning process of the Passenger Transit Development Plan included a wide array of regional representatives, including representatives human service agencies, public transportation officials, elected officials, members of the general public and non-profit representatives; and WHEREAS, The Passenger Transit Development Plan is an ongoing plan to be updated annually by Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, The Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission Board of Directors accepts and receives the Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan on this 15 th Day of April, Brent Schleisman, Chairman Jim Howell, Secretary

3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview 1.2 PTDP Planning Process 1.3 Planning Area 1.4 Regional Profile 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers 2.1 Public Transportation Providers 2.2 Private and Non-Profit Transportation Providers 2.3 School Districts 2.4 Other Transportation Providers 3.0 Evaluation of Needs 3.1 Review of Last Years Efforts 3.2 Public Input 3.3 Service Needs 3.4 Fleet Needs 3.5 Facility Needs Goals and Objectives 4.0 Funding 4.1 Funding Programs 4.2 Funding Estimates 5.0 Passenger Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 5.1 Overview 5.2 SEIBUS TIP 5.3 BUS TIP Appendix A Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheets Appendix B Private and Non-Profit Transportation Providers Appendix C SEIBUS Facility Needs Study Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan i

4 Table of Figures Section 1.0 Introduction Figure 1.1 Counties and Cities represented by SEIRPC Figure 1.2 Region 16 Planning Area Figure 1.3 Region 16 Historical Populations by County Figure 1.4 Region 16 Populations, 2000 Figure 1.5 Region 16 Projected Populations by County Figure 1.6 Region 16 Populations by Age and Sex, 2000 Figure 1.7 Region 16 Household Type of persons 65 and older, 2000 Figure 1.8 Region 16 Historical Urban and Rural Population Trends Figure 1.9 Region 16 Employment by Industry, 2004 Figure 1.10 Region 16 Largest Employers Figure 1.11 Region 16 Commuting Area Section 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.1 Region 16 Transit Service Areas Figure 2.2 SEIBUS Total Rides FY Figure 2.3 SEIBUS Rides by Service FY Figure 2.4 SEIBUS Vehicle Miles FY Figure 2.5 SEIBUS Cost per Ride FY Figure 2.6 SEIBUS Revenues and Expenses FY Figure 2.7 Region 16 Transit Service Areas Figure 2.8 BUS Total Rides FY Figure 2.9 BUS Vehicle Miles FY Figure 2.10 BUS Cost per Ride FY Figure 2.11 BUS Revenues and Expenses FY Figure 2.12 Region 16 Transit Service Areas Figure Transit Lee County Service Times Figure Transit Total Rides FY Figure Transit Vehicle Miles FY Figure Transit Cost per Ride FY Figure Transit Revenues and Expenses FY Figure 2.18 Region 16 Public School District Boundaries Figure 2.19 Region 16 Public School District Fleet Characteristics Figure 2.20 Region 16 Public School District Enrollment, Miles, and Rides Figure 2.21 Region 16 Public School District Transportation Costs Figure 2.22 Southwest Chief Amtrak Route Figure 2.23 California Zephyr Amtrak Route Figure 2.24 Amtrak Ridership, Figure 2.25 Southeast Iowa Regional Airport Historical Enplanements Section 4.0 Funding Figure 4.1 SEIBUS Funding Estimates FY Figure 4.2 BUS Funding Estimates FY Figure Transit Funding Estimates FY Figure 4.4 Region 16 Potential Transit Tax Levy Values Section 4.0 Passenger Transportation Improvement Program Figure 5.1 SEIBUS Projects for FY2009 TIP Figure 5.2 SEIBUS Projects for FY2010 TIP Figure 5.3 SEIBUS Projects for FY2011 TIP Figure 5.4 SEIBUS Projects for FY2012 TIP Figure 5.5 BUS Projects for FY2009 TIP Figure 5.6 BUS Projects for FY2010 TIP Figure 5.7 BUS Projects for FY2011 TIP Figure 5.8 BUS Projects for FY2012 TIP Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan ii

5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview The Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) serves as Southeast Iowa s long-range transportation planning body, and is the organization responsible for the creation of the Passenger Transit Development Plan (PTDP). The PTDP is a required document by Iowa Department of Transportation s (IDOT) Office of Public Transit (OPT), and is in efforts to meet the requirements of the federal transportation authorizing legislation, SAFETEA-LU, to follow a coordinated planning process with human services agencies and transportation providers. The purpose of the Region 16 PTDP is to improve passenger transit services in the Southeast Iowa Region. Ultimately, the outcomes of the PTDP are to: Provide a better understanding of passenger transportation services in Region 16; Facilitate coordinated transportation services within the region; Provide options to address service gaps, fleet needs, and facility needs; and Assist in creating a better passenger transportation system in Region 16 The plan will include: A regional profile of social and economic data; An inventory of current transportation services and agencies, public and private, in the region; Analysis of public participation methods used to gather input; Summary of resources for regional transportation services; Goals for regional transportation services; and Recommendations on meeting identified needs. 1.2 PTDP Planning Process The PTDP Planning Process initially began in May 2006 with the Mobility Action Plan (MAP) Meeting. Following this initial meeting in May 2006, four follow-up MAP meetings were held with the Transit Advisory Committee (TRAC) to guide the development of the PTDP. The development of the PTDP was a natural segue from the MAP meetings. Many pieces of information and ideas from the MAP meetings were analyzed for coordination opportunities in the initial PTDP. All participants from MAP meetings were and will continue to be afforded the opportunity to comment and add to the draft PTDP. The TRAC was initially created as a forum to discuss transit related issues in Southeast Iowa. After the signing of SAFETEA-LU, the TRAC also became the body within the SEIRPC responsible for developing the PTDP. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 1

6 1.0 Introduction The following is a list of agencies that are represented on the Transit Advisory Committee: Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission Southeast Iowa Bus Des Moines County Henry County Louisa County Southeast Iowa Area Agency on Aging City of Fort Madison City of Keokuk Hope Haven The main task performed by the Transit Advisory Committee is identifying passenger transportation needs and identifying projects to address theses needs in the transportation system. The TRAC also meets quarterly to discuss a variety of transit related issues, in addition to the PTDP. The TRAC monitors the progress of the PTDP throughout the year, offers general guidance, and recommends the final version of the PTDP to the SEIRPC Board of Directors for approval. 1.3 Planning Area The Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) planning area consists of the following four counties and thirty-three municipalities as shown in Figure 1.1: Figure 1.1 Counties and Cities represented by SEIRPC Des Moines County Louisa County Burlington Columbus City Danville Columbus Junction Mediapolis Fredonia Middletown Grandview West Burlington Letts Morning Sun Oakville Henry County Wapello Hillsboro Mount Pleasant Lee County Mount Union Donnellson New London Fort Madison Olds Franklin Rome Houghton Salem Keokuk Wayland Montrose Westwood St. Paul Winfield West Point Figure 1.2 on the following page illustrates the Region 16 Transportation Planning Area. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 2

7 1.0 Introduction Figure 1.2 Region 16 Planning Area Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 3

8 1.0 Introduction 1.4 Regional Profile Region 16 s population peaked in the 1970s and has slowly declined since. Henry County and Louisa County have sustained small population growth while Des Moines and Lee Counties have steadily declined, as shown in Figure 1.3 below. Figure 1.3 Region 16 Historical Populations by County Historical Populations by County Population 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Year Des Moines County Lee County Henry County Louisa County Des Moines and Lee Counties are the two largest counties in Region 16. Burlington is the largest city in Region 16, with Keokuk, Fort Madison and Mount Pleasant rounding out the top four largest cities. Populations fore each county and city in Region 16 can be seen in Figure 1.4 below. Figure 1.4 Region 16 Populations, Population 2000 Population Des Moines County 42,351 Louisa County 12,183 Burlington 26,839 Columbus City 3,009 Danville 914 Columbus Junction 1,900 Mediapolis 1,644 Fredonia 251 Middletown 535 Grandview 1,505 West Burlington 3,161 Letts 392 Morning Sun 1,217 Oakville 2, Population Wapello 439 Henry County 20,336 Hillsboro Population Mount Pleasant 8,751 Lee County 38,052 Mount Union 132 Donnellson 963 New London 2,449 Fort Madison 10,715 Olds 249 Franklin 1,409 Rome 113 Houghton 130 Salem 1,039 Keokuk 11,427 Wayland 945 Montrose 2,076 Westwood 127 St. Paul 118 Winfield 1,131 West Point 1,660 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 4

9 1.0 Introduction The future Region 16 population is projected to decline slightly over the next 25 years as seen in Figure 1.5; this projection is consistent with past trends and the population cohort seen in Figure 1.6. Figure 1.5 Region 16 Projected Populations by County Region 16 Projected Populations by County Population 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Des Moines County Henry County Year Lee County Louisa County *Source: SEIRPC, US Census Bureau Population by age and sex in Region 16 reveal some interesting trends as seen in Figure 1.6. Given that the ideal shape of the graph below for population growth is a pyramid shape, Region 16 will not see steady population growth if the trends on the graph remain steady. The region currently has disproportionate number of 35 to 59 year-olds as compared to under 5 years to 19 year-olds. Figure 1.6 Region 16 Populations by Age and Sex, years and over 85 to 89 years 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 t o 19 years 10 t o 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years Region 16 Population by Age and Sex, Population Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 5

10 1.0 Introduction This figure above also shows that the region is poised for a growth in elderly population over the next 20 years, as compared to the current number of persons aged 60 and over. The 2000 data is now seven years old, so the 50 to 54 cohort is now almost all over 60. From the data we can assume that demand for medical and other trip purposes will most likely increase in the region in the near future. Also, compared to the current elderly cohort groups of 60 and above, persons aged 35 to 59 make up approximately one-third more population. Figure 1.7 shows the household type of the 65 and above population of Region 16. The majority of the 65 and over population lives in households as opposed to group quarters, or assisted living centers. This data is from the 2000 Census, so the numbers may have increased for the number of people 65 and over living in a group quarter setting. Figure 1.7 Region 16 Household Type of persons 65 and older, 2000 Des Moines Henry Lee County County County Louisa County Total: 7,084 3,000 6,283 1,697 In households: 6,468 2,736 5,799 1,557 In family households: 4,170 1,756 3,705 1,060 Householder: 2, , Male 1, , Female Spouse 1, , Parent Other relatives Non-relatives In non-family households: 2, , Male householder: Living alone Not living alone Female householder: 1, , Living alone 1, , Not living alone Non-relatives In group quarters: Institutionalized population Non-institutionalized population Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 6

11 1.0 Introduction The figure above also indicates the high number of persons 65 and over living alone (in a non-family household). Over one-third of persons 65 and over, at the time of the 2000 Census lived alone. Future transportation needs for this segment of the population will likely increase given the fact that the 65 and over population is growing and that fully one-third of the 65 and over population lives alone. The rural non-farm population in Region 16 has increased over 100 percent since Urban and rural farm populations have both declined over the same time period. These trends, coupled with a high proportion of the Region 16 population that is aging signal a future increased demand for public transportation services. Figure 1.8 Region 16 Historical Urban and Rural Population Trends Region 16 Historical Urban and Rural Trends Population 150, , ,000 75,000 50,000 25, Year Total Population Urban Rural Non-farm Rural Farm Employment by industry in Region 16 shows the predominance of the manufacturing sector in the regional economy. Approximately 25% of the regional workforce is employed in the manufacturing sector. The next closest sector is retail trade and government, at 15%. Figure 1.9 Region 16 Employment by Industry, 2004 Region 16 Employment by Industry, 2004 Leisure & Hospitality 8% Other Services 3% Government 15% Agriculture & Mining, 1% Construction 4% Manufacturing 25% Education & Health Services 13% Professional & Services, 6% Finance & Real Estate 3% Information, 1% Trade 15% Transportation, Warehousing, 6% Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 7

12 1.0 Introduction Figure 1.10 below shows the largest employers in the Region 16 Planning Area. In the past year, two Job Access Reverse Commute Services have been implemented, transporting workers from Burlington to manufacturing facilities in Columbus Junction and Fort Madison. By identifying these large employers, more services such as this can be implemented in Region 16. Figure 1.10 Region 16 Largest Employers Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 8

13 1.0 Introduction The graphic below shows the extent that the southeast Iowa area draws its labor pool. The effective laborshed extends into Illinois, Missouri and as far as Iowa City, Muscatine and Quincy, IL. This extended laborshed indicates that people entering the employment market in southeast Iowa are willing to travel; this also indicates a potential demand for Job Access Reverse Commute projects. Figure 1.11 Region 16 Commuting Area *Source: Iowa Workforce Development Laborshed Analysis, 2006 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 9

14 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers 2.1 Public Transportation Providers Southeast Iowa Bus (SEIBUS) SERVICE AREA SEIBUS is operated by the Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) and serves Des Moines, Henry and Louisa Counties, as shown in Figure 2.1 below. SEIBUS is the designated provider for Region 16 by the same counties as it serves; the initial contract is for five years (FY FY2010). Figure 2.1 Region 16 Transit Service Areas Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 10

15 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers ROLE IN PTDP PLANNING PROCESS Since the Mobility Action Plan meetings in May 2006, SEIBUS has been a main participant in the PTDP Planning Process as it is the main transportation provider for rural areas and covers the most service are in Region 16. SEIBUS attends all Transit Advisory Committee meetings and is an active participant in discussions regarding the PTDP. STAFF Direct SEIBUS staff consists of twenty-six employees which includes the: Full-time Transit Director; Full-time Transit Dispatcher; Part-time Transit Operations Supervisor; Three full-time drivers; and Twenty-one part-time drivers. SEIRPC staff also participates in the operation, planning and financing of the SEIBUS system. This includes staff includes the: SEIRPC Finance Director; SEIRPC Executive Director; SEIRPC Assistant Director; and SEIRPC Transportation Planner. FLEET CHARACTERISTICS The SEIBUS fleet currently consists of 28 vehicles; 17 light duty buses, 9 vans, and 2 school buses. The average age of the fleet is 9 years old, with an average of 138,599 miles. The majority of SEIBUS vehicles are stored in an auxiliary parking area at the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport in Burlington, Iowa. Approximately 15 of 28 vehicles are based here on a given day. The other 13 vehicles are distributed throughout in the region in Henry County, Louisa County, Fort Madison, and Keokuk. The Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheet in Appendix A provides a detailed list of all vehicles utilized by SEIBUS, including information about each vehicle. SERVICES PROVIDED SEIBUS offers general public transportation in the southeast Iowa region in several forms. Client-based general public services are based on providing services to county mental health and disabled clients. Basic general public services are also offered to all cities and counties in the SEIBUS service region. These services are demand-response and are available at a consistent rate for all types of trip purposes. This service includes Medical Shuttle services to Iowa City twice weekly. SEIBUS also contracts with other private transportation providers to provide general public transportation. These providers are often elder care, sheltered workshop or assisted living facilities that have access to transit vehicles. Furthermore, SEIBUS provides transportation on a contracted basis with some major employers in Southeast Iowa, under the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program. The information below provides more detail about individual services provided throughout the Southeast Iowa Region. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 11

16 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Des Moines County CPC Customers go to either Hope Haven or Recycling Center in Ft. Madison to do daily work Louisa County CPC Customers go to either Hope Haven or Cross Roads in Muscatine for daily work Henry County CPC Customers go to Flexible services for daily work and various appointments. Des Moines and Louisa County General Public 3 day a week service that customers use for shopping medical and anything else that requires transportation Henry County General Public 3 days of service typically in Mt. Pleasant however Tuesday Salem customers come to town. Typically customers in Mt. Pleasant use the service for shopping, medical as well as congregate meals. City of Keokuk and City of Fort Madison General Public 3 days of service, which includes medical, shopping and various other service needs Medical Shuttle Transport customers to Iowa City on Tuesday and Thursday for medical and shopping. Tyson Foods and East West Staffing - Job Access Reverse Commute Provide transportation from Burlington to Tyson in Columbus Jct. and to the Scotts plant in Ft. Madison FARE STRUCTURE The fares for riding SEIBUS are as follows: Per Ride (One Way): $2.50 In County, between cities: $3.75 Between Counties: $5.00 Monthly Pass (Not including Medical Shuttle): $20.00 Medical Shuttle (Service to Iowa City Round Trip): $25.00 JARC Services (One Way Ride): $3.00 PERFORMANCE HISTORY As shown in Figure 2.2 below, SEIBUS has increased its credited rides from approximately 62,000 in FY2005 (first year service was taken over from the previous provider) to just over 86,000 at the end of FY2007. This growth in rides is mainly attributed to a growth in transportation services provided and improved efficiency of services. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 12

17 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.2 SEIBUS Total Rides FY ,000 SEIBUS Total Rides FY Rides 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 61,981 85,415 86, Fiscal Year Figure 2.3 below shows the number of rides SEIBUS provided between by individual services from FY2005 FY2007. The majority of the rides are being generated by Midwest Old Threshers, which accounts for nearly 50% of all of the rides provided each year. Other major services for SEIBUS include Des Moines County CPC and Henry County CPC. Figure 2.3 SEIBUS Rides by Service FY ,000 SEIBUS Rides by Service FY Keokuk Rides 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Hope Haven Fort Madison Kensington Des Moines County General Public Henry County 5, Fiscal Year Midwest Old Threshers Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 13

18 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.4 below displays the revenue and vehicle miles traveled by SEIBUS from FY2005 FY2007. Since 2005, when SEIBUS took over transit service in Southeast Iowa, both revenue miles and vehicle miles have risen significantly. This is attributed to many things including an increase in overall services, increase in ridership, and an increase in long distance trips. Figure 2.4 SEIBUS Vehicle Miles FY Revenue Miles 350, , , , , ,000 50,000 0 SEIBUS Vehicle Miles FY , , , , , , Fiscal Year One of the most important factors in determining the overall efficiency and effectiveness of a transit system is the cost per ride. Figure 2.5 shows the average cost per ride for SEIBUS between FY2005 FY2007. Figure 2.5 SEIBUS Cost per Ride FY $10.00 SEIBUS Cost Per Ride FY Cost Per Ride $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $7.03 $6.43 $7.92 $ Fiscal Year As seen above, the cost per ride dropped in FY2006 and then increased much higher in FY2007. This can be attributed to a small growth in the overall amount of rides provided, but a large increase in the number of miles driven. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 14

19 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers To operate a regional transit system, SEIBUS must generate revenues from a variety of sources to cover expenses related to operations, maintenance, vehicle storage, vehicle replacement, and administration costs. Figure 2.6 illustrates the overall operation expenses compared to the sources of revenue. Figure 2.6 SEIBUS Revenues and Expenses FY SEIBUS Revenues and Expenses FY $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 Passenger Revenue Contract Revenue Dollars $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 Other Reveune FTA Funding STA Funding $100,000 $ Fiscal Year Operating Expenses Operating cost for SEIBUS has increased over three years from approximately $436,000 to nearly $682,000. These costs have increased due to increases in services provided, cost of fuel, insurance and longer trip lengths. To balance the huge increase in operational expenses, SEIBUS has had to increase the amount of revenue generated as well. The main way that SEIBUS was able to covers these costs was through major increases passenger revenues, contract revenues, and FTA funding. As costs continue to increase, SEIBUS will have to continue to increase sources of revenue to provide services. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 15

20 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Burlington Urban Service (BUS) SERVICE AREA BUS is operated by the City of Burlington and serves Burlington and West Burlington, in the incorporated limits only. The service area is not separated by school district transportation services, although both Burlington and West Burlington provide school transportation services. Combined, the population of Burlington and West Burlington was 30,000 at the time of the 2000 US Census. Figure 2.7 Region 16 Transit Service Areas Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 16

21 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers ROLE IN PTDP The Burlington Urban Service Transit Manager has participated in the past MAP Workshops and at PTDP planning sessions, detailing the various ways that BUS could coordinate with other agencies. In addition, SEIRPC staff has met with the BUS individually to discuss the service and fleet needs, as well as ways to coordinate services with other agencies. STAFF BUS staff consists of nineteen employees which includes a: Part-time Transit Manager; Two Part-time Maintenance Workers; Full-Time Transit Scheduler; Six full-time drivers; and Nine part-time drivers. FLEET CHARACTERISTICS The BUS fleet currently consists of 11 total vehicles, all ADA equipped. Of these 11 buses, 7 are medium duty buses and 4 are light duty buses. The average age of the fleet is 8 years old, with an average of 163,006 miles. The Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheet in Appendix A provides a detailed list of all vehicles utilized by SEIBUS, including information about each vehicle. SERVICES PROVIDED Services provided from BUS focus on route-based service. Demand-response services are also offered. Route based service includes routes for school-children that do not qualify for busing in the Burlington Community School District. This involves being located more than one mile away from the school the child attends. BUS suspends normal route services twice a day during the school year to help transport students. Due to some scheduling conflicts, BUS and SEIBUS have an operating relationship that is governed by the BUS urban service area. SEIBUS does not provided service that originates in the BUS area unless a previous agreement has been reached; SEIBUS only provides service that BUS cannot provide itself. FARE STRUCTURE The fares for riding Burlington Urban Service are as follows: Per Ride: $1.25 Tokens: 4 for $4.00 Half Month Pass: $9.25 Monthly Pass: $18.50 Annual Pass: $ Transfer: Free Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 17

22 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers PERFORMANCE HISTORY As shown in Figure 2.8 below, BUS has seen a steady decline in its credited rides from 147,481 in FY2005 to 131,847 at the end of FY2007. Figure 2.8 BUS Total Rides FY Ri des 150, , , , , , ,000 BUS Total Rides FY , , , F i scal Y ear Figure 2.10 below displays the revenue and vehicle miles traveled by BUS from FY2005 FY2007. Since 2005, the amount of revenue miles and vehicle miles has stayed relatively the same, ranging between 180,000 and 185,000 over this time period. The main reason for this is that the services provided have stayed relatively the same, making only small changes in the number of miles driven. Figure 2.9 BUS Vehicle Miles FY Revenue Mi l es 185, , , , , , , , , 190 BUS Vehicle Miles FY , , , , F i scal Y ear One of the most important factors in determining the overall efficiency and effectiveness of a transit system is the cost per ride. Figure 2.9 on the next page shows the average cost per ride for BUS between FY2005 FY2007. This chart shows that the cost per ride has gradually increased from FY2005 to FY2007. This can be attributed to a loss in ridership, while vehicle miles have stayed relatively the same. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 18

23 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.10 BUS Cost per Ride FY Cost Per Ri de $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $- BUS Cost Per Ride FY $5.49 $4.67 $ F i scal Y ear To operate a regional transit system, BUS must generate revenues from a variety of sources to cover expenses related to operations, maintenance, vehicle storage, vehicle replacement, and administration costs. Figure 2.11 illustrates the overall operation expenses compared to the sources of revenue. Figure 2.11 BUS Revenues and Expenses FY Dollars $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 BUS Revenues and Expenses FY Contract Revenue Other Reveune Passenger Revenue FTA Funding STA Funding $200,000 Local Tax $100,000 $ Fiscal Year Operating Expenses Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 19

24 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Operating costs for BUS have increased over three years from just over $600,000 to just over $700,000. These costs have increased mainly due to increases in the cost of fuel and insurance. As these costs continue to increase, BUS will have to continue to increase sources of revenue to provide services to the community. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 20

25 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Regional Transit SERVICE AREA serves 11 counties in south central Iowa; however this plan will concentrate on its service to the unincorporated areas of Lee County, as shown in Figure 2.X below. Although still part of the Region 16 Planning Area the Lee County supervisors have designated Transit as its service provider. Figure 2.12 Region 16 Transit Service Areas Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 21

26 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers ROLE IN PTDP The Transit Administrator participated in the original MAP meetings and has met individually with SEIRPC planners for information regarding the PTDP including service needs, fleet needs, and coordination opportunities. STAFF Transit staff consists of sixty-nine employees which includes a: Full-time Transit Administrator; Three full time administration staff; Two part time administration staff; Four maintenance staff; Four full-time drivers; and Fifty-five part-time drivers. FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Currently, has five buses in Lee County, with four serving primary day-to-day roles and one serving as backup for the other four. Three of the buses are engaged in full-time operation in Lee County. Of the five buses used in Lee County, two are light duty and three are medium duty. The Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheet in Appendix A provides a detailed list of all vehicles utilized by SEIBUS, including information about each vehicle. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 22

27 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers SERVICE TYPES offers both general public and client-based transportation services. Demand response services are available to general public to and from various destinations. Please see the table below for the times and services that Transit provides in Lee County. Figure Transit Lee County Service Times Time Passenger Route Destination Bus # 4:30 AM Park Ridge Route Montrose 3 6:00 AM Drop at Park Ridge Montrose 3 6:15 AM General Public, M-F Montrose to Keokuk and Ft. Madison 3 6:45 AM Begin Hope Haven Route in Keokuk Burlington 3 7:00 AM Fort Madison Bridgeway Route Keokuk 1 7:15 AM Hope Haven Route in Fort Madison Burlington 3 7:30 AM Keokuk Bridgeway Keokuk 2 7:45 AM Drop at Recyclers Ft. Madison 3 8:45 AM Drop at Hope Haven Sites Burlington 3 9:00 AM Arrives and Deboards Passengers Keokuk Bridgeway 1,2 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM General Public in Keokuk M - F 2 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM Keokuk Bridgeway M-W-F 1 12:15 PM Donnellson Friday only 1 12:45 PM Mid-day Bridgeway 2 Keokuk Ft. Madison 2 1:30 PM Park Ridge -- Montrose Ft. Madison 1 2:15 PM - 4:00 PM Keokuk Bridgeway Group Keokuk 2 2:30 PM General Public, M-F 1 3:00 PM Pick Up Hope Haven Passengers Burlington 3 3:00 PM Keokuk Bridgeway Returns Ft. Madison 1 3:30 PM - 6:30 PM Demand Response, M-W-F Drop In Center 4 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM General Public 2 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM Pick Up Recycling Passengers Ft. Madison 3 4:30 PM Lincoln Ridge Special Drop In Center M - W - F Keokuk 1,2 OR 4:30 PM Day is done 6:00 PM Done in Burlington 3 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM Demand Response 4 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM Children First 4 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 23

28 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers PERFORMANCE HISTORY Figure 2.14 below illustrates the gradual increase of its credited rides from approximately 23,170 in FY2005 to just over 26,452 at the end of FY2007. This growth in rides is mainly attributed to increases in services and improved efficiency. Figure Transit Total Rides FY Ri des 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21, Transit Total Rides FY , , , F i scal Year Figure 2.15 below displays the revenue and vehicle miles traveled by Transit from FY2005 FY2007. Since 2005, vehicle miles have increased significantly, while revenue miles have increased slightly. Figure Transit Vehicle Miles FY , Transit Vehicle Miles FY Revenue Mi l es 150, ,000 50, , , , , , , F i scal Y ear One of the most important factors in determining the overall efficiency and effectiveness of a transit system is the cost per ride. Figure 2.16 shows the average cost per ride for SEIBUS between FY2005 FY2007. As seen above, the cost per ride increased significantly in FY2006 and then decreased slightly in FY2007. The increase in cost per ride in FY2006 is due to a small increase in passengers, but a large increase in the number of miles driven. In FY2007, the vehicle miles driven were approximately the same, but there was a large increase in the number of passengers using the service. This created the decrease in the cost per ride in FY2007. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 24

29 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure Transit Cost per Ride FY $ Transit Cost Per Ride FY Cost Per Ri de $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $5.37 $7.47 $6.46 $ F i scal Y ear To operate a regional transit system, Transit must generate revenues from a variety of sources to cover expenses related to operations, maintenance, vehicle storage, vehicle replacement, and administration costs. Figure 2.17 illustrates the overall operation expenses compared to the sources of revenue. Figure Transit Revenues and Expenses FY Transit Revenues and Expenses FY Dollars $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 Local Tax STA Funding FTA Funding Contract Revenue $20,000 $ Fiscal Year Operating Expenses Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 25

30 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Operating cost for SEIBUS has continually increased over the past three years from approximately $124,400 to nearly $170,955. These costs have increased due to the cost of fuel, insurance and longer trip lengths. To balance the huge increase in operational expenses, Transit has had to increase the amount of revenue generated as well. The main way that Transit has been able to covers these costs is through major increases in contract revenues and a small increase in FTA funding. As costs continue to increase, Transit will have to continue to increase sources of revenue to provide services. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 26

31 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers 2.2 Private and Non-Profit Transportation Providers There are multiple private and small non-profit transportation providers in the Region 16 Planning Area. These providers may range from private agencies to non-profit advocacy agencies to small assisted living centers. SEIRPC is continually trying to identify and inventory these providers and identify opportunities for coordination. The list below shows all known small, private or non-profit transportation service in the Region 16 Planning area. More detailed information on the services they provide is shown in Appendix B. American Cancer Society American Cab Company Burlington Care Center Burlington Trailways Comfort Keepers Danville Care Center Des Moines County RSVP Donnellson Health Center Fort Madison Community Hospital Great River Medical Center Henry County Health Center Henry County RSVP Hope Haven Development Center Keokuk Health Systems Lexington Square Morning Sun Care Center New London Nursing and Rehab Center Park View Care Center Pleasant Manor Care Center Prairie Ridge Care and Rehab River Hills Village Rosebush Gardens and Assisted Living Sunnybrook at Ashford Park Sunny Brook Home Care The Kensington The Willows Assisted Living Center West Point Care Center SEIBUS currently works with seven of these providers: The Kensington, Lexington Square, Keokuk Health Systems, Henry County Health Center, Henry County RSVP, Great River Medical Center, and Hope Haven. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 27

32 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers 2.3 School Districts SERVICE AREA There are 16 school districts that serve the Region 16 Planning Area, with only one of these school districts not having facilities located in the region. Figure 2.18 on the next page shows the public school districts in the region. ROLE IN PTDP PLANNING PROCESS The school districts currently have a limited role in the PTDP planning process. Representatives from school district did not attend the initial MAP Workshops in 2006 and have not participated in any PTDP meetings up to this point. The only involvement has been through a recent survey sent to school districts intended to identify service needs, fleet needs, and interest in coordination opportunities. SERVICES PROVIDED Each school district currently provides transportation within the boundaries of their own district to avoid duplication of services. Transportation is available to all students eligible for bus transportation including to school, from school, for extracurricular activities, and any other special events. Eligible students for bus transportation are those that are within two miles of an established stop on a bus route are within and are not eligible for parent or private transportation at public expense. Iowa school districts are also allowed to provide vehicles for other public transportation trips, but at this time no school districts are providing this service. Schools can also work with public transit agencies to provide additional transportation service or to fill gaps in service. Many public transit agencies provide this service across the State of Iowa and this is seen in one school district in Region 16. The Burlington Community School District works with Burlington Urban Service to provide additional service to students within the City of Burlington. At this time, this is the only known instance of a school district working with a public transit agency in Region 16. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 28

33 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.18 Region 16 Public School District Boundaries Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 29

34 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers FLEET CHARACTERISTICS The 16 school districts in Region 16 operate a total of 233 buses and 59 small vehicles, with each district having an average of 15 buses and 4 small vehicles. Figure 2.19 below provides information on the number of buses and small vehicles for each of the school districts in Region 16. Figure 2.19 Region 16 Public School District Fleet Characteristics School District Name Buses Small Vehicles Burlington 27 0 Central Lee Columbus 13 0 Danville 11 2 Fort Madison 30 6 Harmony 13 5 Keokuk 15 2 Louisa-Muscatine 21 4 Mediapolis 16 7 Morning Sun 2 2 Mount Pleasant 23 0 New London 6 2 Waco 13 5 Wapello 12 6 West Burlington Independent 4 1 Winfield-Mt Union 7 4 Averages 15 4 Totals PERFORMANCE HISTORY Figure 2.20 on the following page shows information on the number of students enrolled in each school district, the number of route and non-route miles driven, and the average number of students transported. From this, we see that Burlington, Fort Madison, Keokuk, Mount Pleasant, and Columbus Community are the five largest school districts in that order. We also see that Fort Madison, Mt. Pleasant, Burlington, Central Lee, and Mediapolis have the highest number of miles driven. This is mainly attributed to the physical size of these districts school boundaries, but also due to the enrollment of the school district as well. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 30

35 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.20 Region 16 Public School District Enrollment, Miles, and Rides School District Name Enrollment Route Miles Non-Route Miles Average # of Students Transported Burlington 4, ,398 45,805 1,142 Central Lee ,867 26, Columbus 1,037 68,369 33, Danville ,184 22, Fort Madison 2, ,227 76,424 1,285 Harmony ,881 21, Keokuk 2,353 77,731 38, Louisa- Muscatine ,381 38, Mediapolis ,406 23, Morning Sun , Mount Pleasant 2, ,315 67, New London ,811 16, Waco ,990 31, Wapello ,368 32, West Burlington Independent ,487 2 Winfield-Mt Union ,255 23, Averages 1, ,011 32, Totals 19,441 1,616, ,345 8,840 Figure 2.21 on the following page shows a comparison of the operating costs for the transporting students in each of the school districts. From this we see that Mt. Pleasant, Fort Madison, Burlington, Mediapolis and Central Lee have the highest net operating cost in that order for providing transportation. While these school districts have the highest net operating cost, Morning Sun, New London, Harmony, Danville, an Mediapolis have the highest average cost per student transported. This statistic really shows the true cost of bus transportation Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 31

36 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Figure 2.21 Region 16 Public School District Transportation Costs School District Name Enrollment Net Operating Cost Average CostPupil Transported Average CostPupil Enrolled Average CostMile Burlington 4,636 $ 437, $ $ $ 2.36 Central Lee 993 $ 344, $ $ $ 2.15 Columbus 1,037 $ 219, $ $ $ 3.21 Danville 477 $ 174, $ $ $ 3.70 Fort Madison 2,452 $ 475, $ $ $ 2.22 Harmony 437 $ 226, $ $ $ 2.10 Keokuk 2,353 $ 240, $ $ $ 3.09 Louisa- Muscatine 890 $ 305, $ $ $ 2.67 Mediapolis 907 $ 378, $ $ $ 2.64 Morning Sun 237 $ 58, $ 1, $ $ 2.19 Mount Pleasant 2,176 $ 497, $ $ $ 2.29 New London 542 $ 116, $ $ $ 3.54 Waco 571 $ 193, $ $ $ 2.22 Wapello 863 $ 183, $ $ $ 2.28 West Burlington Independent 488 $ $ $ 0.84 $ 2.45 Winfield-Mt Union 380 $ 87, $ $ $ 1.64 Averages 1,215 $ 246, $ $ $ 2.55 Totals 19,441 $3,937, $8, $3, $ Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 32

37 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers 2.4 Other Transportation Providers Amtrak Currently there are two Amtrak routes that serve the Region 16 Area; the California Zephyr and the Southwest Chief. These routes can be seen in Figures 2.22 and 2.23 below. The California Zephyr Route has stations in Burlington and Mount Pleasant, while the Southwest Chief Route has a station in Fort Madison. Figure 2.22 Southwest Chief Amtrak Route Figure 2.23 California Zephyr Amtrak Route The following chart provides ridership numbers at the three Amtrak Stations located in Region 16 from 2000 to Figure 2.24 Amtrak Ridership, Station Location Burlington 7,007 3,857 5,460 5,576 6,532 Mount Pleasant 12,605 12,962 10,663 10,075 12,010 Fort Madison 7,973 7,758 7,173 7,530 8,677 Total 27,585 24,577 23,296 23,181 27,219 Currently, transit service to and from these stations is very limited. The only location with regular service to an Amtrak Station is in Burlington. BUS currently has there main transfer point at the Amtrak Depot. Other transportation service to Amtrak Stations would be provided on a demand response basis. Additional studies will need to be done to see if there are additional coordination opportunities for providing transit service to Amtrak Stations in Region 16. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 33

38 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers Southeast Iowa Regional Airport The Southeast Iowa Regional Airport is the only commercial-service airport in the Region 16 Planning Area (as shown in Figure 2.25 below), serving Southeast Iowa, west-central Illinois and northeast Missouri. The airport is owned by the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport Authority (SIRAA), which was launched in 1996 by the cities of Burlington and West Burlington as an independent entity, supported by a multi-government coalition. Des Moines County recently became a member of the SIRAA in Figure 2.25 Southeast Iowa Regional Airport Historical Enplanement Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 34

39 2.0 Inventory of Transportation Providers The airport is provided commercial air service by Great Lakes Aviation, an affiliate of Frontier Airlines. They provide 2 flights daily to St. Louis, MO and one flight daily to Kansas City, MO. Figure 2.26 below provides information on the number of enplanements Figure 2.26 Southeast Iowa Regional Airport Historical Enplanement Enplanements 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Southeast Iowa Regional Airport Historical Enplanements Year Currently the only transit service available at the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport is on a demand response basis. SEIBUS plans to provide a limited amount of service to the airport as part of a grant received through the Small Community Air Service Program. Additional planning will need to be done to see if there are additional coordination opportunities for providing transit service to the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 35

40 3.0 Evaluation of Needs 3.1 Review of Last Years Efforts The following section provides a review of services provided and projects implemented over the past year for public transportation providers. These services and projects are those that used state or federal funding including State Transit Assistance, FTA Section 5311, FTA Section 5309, FTA Section 5316, and FTA Section In addition, this section will include information on coordination efforts that were undertaken during the past year. State Transit Assistance (STA) STA is predominately used to subsidize public transit operations in Region 16, although the funding is flexible, so it can be used for a number of different activities. The following activities were at least in part funded with STA funds. SEIBUS In calendar year 2006, STA was used by SEIBUS in part to expand general public transportation services by providing a subsidy to agencies that provided public transportation services on behalf of SEIBUS. These agencies include: The Kensington, Hope Haven, Lexington Square and Midwest Old Threshers. Regional health centers also benefited from STA assistance; SEIBUS partnered with Keokuk Health Systems and the Great River Medical Center to shuttle patients to these centers for medical appointments. Both entities also contributed funding to help finance the service. BUS Transit Transit is working to expand services for the Lee Co CPC and Area Recycling services as well as the Children First program has also expanded the Promise Jobs program to Lee County, which is in effect in some of s other ten counties. Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Funding FTA 5311 funding comes to Region 16 in two forms, transportation planning grants and operating subsidies funds are received by SEIBUS, BUS, and Transit. FTA 5311 planning grants enable SEIRPC to provide transit planning services, both externally and internally. Externally, the funding allows SEIRPC to: Complete the Passenger Transit Development Plan (PTDP); Work with area agencies to improve transit service delivery; and Assist to staff the regional Transit Advisory Committee (TRAC). Internally 5311 funding allows for staff time to plan for Region 16 transit services, including: capital, financial, route and new service planning. Transit portions of the Transportation Improvement Program are completed and updated with this funding as well. SEIRPC has also assisted BUS in their funding needs related to federal and state sources. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 36

41 3.0 Evaluation of Needs Region 16 receives the bulk of its 5311 funding in the form of operating subsidies for both Transit and SEIBUS. Each receives an allocation based on the service they provide in the region (the exact funding formula may be found in the Funding Sources section). SEIBUS uses a portion of its 5311 subsidy to assist other agencies provide public transportation services, as mentioned in the STA section above. SEIBUS, Transit and BUS all utilize 5311 funding to support virtually all of its operations and maintenance activities. Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 Funding FTA Section 5309 funding was utilized to secure three Light-Duty ADA-accessible buses for SEIBUS in November, Section 5309 funding was also used for the Burlington Urban Service to purchase associated maintenance equipment. Federal Transit Administration Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Funding SEIBUS was awarded $47,000 for a JARC project to assist low-income workers gain access to employment at Tyson, Inc. in Columbus Junction, IA. This project has been extremely successful, providing 12,477 rides in October, November, and December of With the high inter-commuting rate in southeast Iowa, other potential JARC projects are almost certain to develop throughout the next year. Federal Transit Administration Section 5317 New Freedoms New Freedoms money is sub-allocated to individual systems in Iowa to use on expanded services and facilities specifically targeted towards transportation needs of persons with disabilities. These funding amounts for BUS, SEIBUS and Transit are listed in the Funding Sources section. Currently, only has used New Freedoms funding to purchase an ADA minivan to serve special needs in region and Lee County. Coordination Efforts Undertaken Coordination has been an ongoing effort in the Region 16 Planning Area. Multiple regional agencies are currently working together to provide transportation services. Examples of coordination projects over the last year include: Assisted Transportation Several Human Service agencies in Region 16, including the Area Agency on Aging, Henry County RSVP, Des Moines County RSVP, Home Caring Services, Louisa County Public Health and Hope Haven are concerned about the availability of assisted transportation for individuals who require assistance either getting on or off the bus or assistance at their destination. Several meetings were held to explore the topic and potential solutions to the issue. No action has been taken to address the issue currently, but the discussion has certainly raised an awareness of assisted transportation needs in the region. The needs, in terms of sheer numbers are relatively small, but no less important, than other specialized transportation needs in the region, such as disabled transportation service or medical appointment services. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 37

42 3.0 Evaluation of Needs Service Delegation Under an informal agreement between SEIBUS, BUS, Transit, Des Moines County RSVP and the Iowa Department of Human Services, any transportation need one entity receives and cannot provide, is offered to the other agencies for service provision. This informal structure has helped provide multiple rides to persons who were not able to fit into a particular schedule with the first party they requested service from. Brokering Several regional private entities have chosen to work with SEIBUS on brokering contracts, where agencies provide general public service along with regular service they may give to their patrons. In this way, more efficient services are delivered at minimal expense. Oftentimes these services are overflow services or off-schedule services where public buses are full or are not running at a particular time. The private agencies must adhere to all federal requirements under FTA rules. The TRAC has created several ideas for coordination, one of which is a regional dispatch system. All calls for transportation would be funneled to a single number, where a team of dispatchers would answer the calls and direct the service to the appropriate or available provider. The key to this concept is a comprehensive inventory of transportation providers and an agreement among the providers to participate in the system. This idea continues to develop with the TRAC. 3.2 Public Input Below are descriptions of the different ways public input was used to evaluate the needs for transportation services in Southeast Iowa. Surveys SEIRPC administered two surveys to private or small non-profit agencies in Region 16 that may be likely to use transportation services or provide transportation services themselves. In fall 2006, a survey was mailed to all known agencies that may either consume or provide transportation services; these surveys were sent to the same agencies that were invited to the MAP meetings in Surveys received yielded nine responses and some information that was already known. The second survey was administered by phone by SEIRPC and SEIBUS staff in early This survey yielded 17 responses and two duplicate responses from the Fall 2006 survey. In total, SEIRPC has received responses and information from 24 human service or public transportation providers or consumers. Information yielded from these surveys included service needs, services provided or used, trip types and if the agency is interested in coordination opportunities. SEIRPC and SEIBUS will update the survey and collect new information from transportation providers as seen necessary in the future. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 38

43 3.0 Evaluation of Needs Individual Meetings Since the MAP Workshops in May of 2006, SEIRPC and SEIBUS have been scheduling meetings with public transportation providers, private and non-profit transportation providers, and local employers to identify transportation needs. The MAP workshops and surveys provided general service needs. Through individual meetings, SEIRPC and SEIBUS have been able to identify specific service needs. This has led to the development of many projects and coordination efforts. Additional information on the results of these meetings is provided in the general and immediate service needs sections. Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheet Public transportation providers in Southeast Iowa were required to fill out a passenger transportation provider fact sheet. This sheet provides information about each of the agencies including operation data, capital needs, fleet utilization, and fleet replacement schedule. Copies of the completed transportation provider fact sheets are provided in Appendix A. Transit Advisory Committee (TRAC) Meetings The TRAC meets quarterly to discuss a variety of transit related issues, in addition to the PTDP. The TRAC monitors the progress of the PTDP throughout the year, offers general guidance, and recommends the final version of the PTDP to the SEIRPC Board of Directors for approval. The main task performed by the Transit Advisory Committee is identifying passenger transportation needs and identifying projects to address theses needs in the transportation system. 3.3 Service Needs General Service Needs Since the MAP workshops in 2006, the TRAC continues to discuss transportation service needs in Southeast Iowa. Through these discussions, the following list has been developed to show the most common needs for transportation service. Expanded days of service Extended hours of operation Schedule issues, layovers and long times on bus Additional trip purposes Barriers to access services Assisted transportation Lower fares for services Obtaining new and replacing vehicles to provide services effectively Central dispatch and transportation service information center Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 39

44 3.0 Evaluation of Needs Immediate Service Needs Immediate service needs are those that are most pressing andor have the ability to be met in the short term time frame. Many of the service needs described above have the ability to be met in the short term if the right conditions are present. Below provides information on these service needs and projects that will help to implement Expanded Disabled Service (Assisted Transportation), Southeast Iowa SEIBUS has identified a need for expanded transportation for the disabled population in southeast Iowa. The most demonstrated demand for this service is in Henry County, Des Moines County and Keokuk, Iowa. Currently SEIBUS provides 18 hours of general public service a week in Henry County, 12 in Keokuk, and 12 in Des Moines County. SEIBUS provided 749 direct rides to wheel-chair bound patrons in FY2007, with Henry County, Des Moines County and Keokuk making up 62 percent of this total. Each area has demand over the capacity and service hours SEIBUS currently provides. SEIBUS would like to expand services to be able to serve more disabled persons that may not be able to meet the current SEIBUS schedule with their needs. SEIBUS needs the extra time to be able to help seniors on the bus or to handle wheel chairs. Not only will the expanded hours reach more people, but SEIBUS would have the ability to spend more time to serve those with special needs. Based on the demand evaluated by SEIBUS partners and SEIBUS, New Freedoms would be a logical choice to bring additional funds in to perform this service. SEIBUS anticipates adding 12 hours per week of service regionally, for a total of 624 annually. The estimated cost is $30,000 total to expand this service. Expanded Medical Service Medical transportation is one of the highest transportation needs in southeast Iowa for senior residents. The senior population needs to be better informed about current services and additional services are needed to increase access to specialized medical care. Currently there are unmet medical transportation needs that should be provided for using a mix of private and public resources. According to clients and regional senior organizations, such as RSVP, transportation to Iowa City is critical for many seniors to access specialized care not available in southeast Iowa, such as orthopedics, cancer treatment or even access to Veterans benefits. Knowing that specialized medical care in Iowa City is a real and critical need, service providers must realize the mechanics of how the need is met. Scheduling appointments is the next most important part of accessing the care next to transportation. Currently SEIBUS operates two medical shuttles per week, Tuesday and Thursday. Clients must schedule their appointments between 9am and 1pm to utilize the existing medical shuttle service times. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 40

45 3.0 Evaluation of Needs The medical shuttle transports clients from each county in southeast Iowa. This means the service starts early and arrives late to accommodate a dispersed client base. The service starts making home pickups at 6 AM, arrives in Iowa City at approximately 9:30 AM and returns for southeast Iowa at 2 PM, making the final drop-offs at approximately 5:30 PM. Up to two other buses operate to either transport to Iowa City or shuttle passengers to a pick up point where passengers are transferred to the Iowa City bus. Due to the limited days and timeframe for scheduling appointments, expanding operations to more days and offering more flexible hours would give seniors in southeast more scheduling opportunities for their specialized care needs in Iowa City than what is currently available. Job Access Reverse Commute Needs Job Access Reverse Commute is a relatively new service in southeast Iowa. However, it could be one of the most valuable services in the region, given the high percentage of residents that commute, the increasing cost of transportation and the increasingly large labor pool that area employers draw from. In the past year, SEIBUS has worked with East West Staffing Agency and Tyson Foods to transport workers from Burlington to manufacturing facilities in Fort Madison and Columbus Junction. With the overwhelming demand for service for Tyson Foods, there is a huge need to improve this service by providing additional vehicles and identifying other areas to improve efficiency. Also with the success of these two services, it is evident that there is a great need to provide these services in Southeast Iowa. SEIRPC will work over the next year to contact major employers in Southeast Iowa to identify more opportunities to provide transportation services to major companies. 3.4 Fleet Needs Several current private or non-profit transportation providers listed ADA accessible buses or vans as needed improvements to their fleets. Public providers needs are listed on the Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheets in Appendix B. Public provider s needs are essentially replacing existing rolling stock with newer vehicles, or for associated maintenance. 3.5 Facility Needs Currently, SEIBUS is the only public transportation provider that has facility needs as identified. A copy of the SEIBUS Facility Feasibility Study is attached in Appendix C. The study will be updated this year to account for a growth in fleet and services. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 41

46 3.0 Evaluation of Needs Goals and Objectives Goal: Continue to monitor and update comprehensive inventory of regional transportation services. Objectives: Compile all existing information on regional transportation provider services Mine resources, such as county CPC s, AAA, RSVP, medical clinics, etc Conduct surveys to update information on services offered by different providers Goal: Create an inventory of largest employers in Southeast Iowa Region to identify opportunities for JARC services and van pool programs Objectives: Compile all existing information on largest employers Contact employers to describe JARC program and gauge interest in participation Goal: Evaluate and propose coordination opportunities Objectives: Research potential opportunities during phone surveys of private, small or non-profit providers Compile all existing information on past coordination meetings Analyze existing public transit services for potential coordination opportunities Goal: Complete comprehensive inventory of transportation needs (capital, equipment, operational assistance, management) and associated justifications Objectives: Compile all existing information on needs and associated justifications Research potential needs during phone surveys of private, small or non-profit providers. Research potential needs with school districts in the region Goal: Raise the awareness of transportation services provided in Southeast Iowa Objectives: Update information on public transportation services including brochures, newsletters, websites, and route maps Increase the number presentation given to community groups Distribute information of public transportation services provided to community groups Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 42

47 4.0 Funding 4.1 Funding Programs Local Funding Programs Passenger Revenues A fee paid by the passengers is one of the most common sources of local support. This can include monies collected on-board the transit vehicle (usually called farebox receipts ), as well as prepaid fares from sale of passes or tickets, or fares billed to the passenger after the fact. FTA requires that all passenger revenues be subtracted from the total cost of operating transit service to identify a net operating cost, before eligibility for federal financial support of operations can be calculated. Contract Revenue Human service agencies, local communities, as well as private businesses are often willing to pay a part or all of the cost for certain types of rides provided as part of the open to the public transit operation. Such subsidies are classified as contract revenues and can count toward the required local match on federal projects. Municipal Transit Levy Iowa law authorizes municipalities to levy up to 95 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation to support the cost of a public transit system. Most of Iowa s larger communities levy for support of their urban transit systems. A number of smaller communities use this authority to generate funding used to support services contracted from their designated regional transit system. Click here for information that shows which Iowa communities are currently using the levy authority and how much is being generated. Regional Transit Levy In 2005, the Iowa legislature authorized Iowa s two largest counties to form special taxing districts, under the control of the county, for support of area-wide public transit services. Once formed, adjacent counties can become part of the district, or municipalities in non-participating adjacent counties can join. The district can levy up to the 95 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation; but, unlike the provisions in the municipal levy, the regional transit districts can set differing levy rates across their territory. As of July 2007, only Polk County has chosen to form a district, and has, so far, limited its geographic coverage to just their county. Nearly all municipalities within the county have opted to participate. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 43

48 4.0 Funding General Fund Levy The cost of supporting transit services is an eligible use of general fund revenues for all Iowa governments and is the primary source of funding to support transit for counties who don t have the option of a transit levy, as well as for cities which chose not to use the transit levy. Trust and Agency Levy The Trust and Agency Levy can be used by cities and counties to support employee benefit plans. As such, it can be used to help support the cost of a city operated transit system. Student Fees Mandatory student fees established by a college or university are similar to a tax levy in that all members of the particular community contribute. Advertising Revenues Sale of on-board advertising or advertising space in brochures, etc., can provide some additional revenues to the transit program. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 44

49 4.0 Funding State Funding Programs State Transit Assistance (STA) Formula The majority of the state transit assistance funds received in a fiscal year are distributed to individual transit systems on the basis of a formula using performance statistics from the most recent available year. The STA formula funds are first split between urban and regional systems on the basis of total revenue miles of service provided by each group. The funds are then split among individual systems in each category, 50 percent on the basis of locally determined income (LDI), 25 percent on the basis of rides per dollar of expense, and 25 percent on the basis of revenue miles per dollar of expenditure. OPT calculates LDI by subtracting FTA and STA formula funds from the system's operating expenses. Figure 4.1 provides an illustration of the STA formula. These funds can be used by the public transit system for operating, capital or planning expenses related to the provision of open-to thepublic passenger transportation. Figure 4.1 Iowa State Transit Assistance Formula Allocation State Transit Assistance (STA) Special Projects Up to $300,000 of the total STA funds are set aside to fund special projects each year. This can include grants to individual systems to support transit services which are developed in conjunction with human service agencies, or statewide projects to improve public transit in Iowa through such means as technical training for transit system or planning agency personnel, statewide marketing campaigns, etc. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 45

50 4.0 Funding Coordination Special Projects This is considered an immediate opportunity program by the Iowa DOT, meaning that these funds can be applied for at any time of the year as an opportunity arises. Projects are intended to assist with start-up of new services that have been identified as needs by health, employment or human service agencies participating in the Passenger Transportation Development Planning process. The majority of projects will fall within the $5,000-$25,000 range. Priority is given to projects which include a contribution from human service agencies as well. AMOCO Loan The capital match revolving loan fund was created by the Iowa Legislature in the early 1980 s with funds from Iowa's share of the federal government s petroleum overcharge settlement against the American Oil Company (Amoco.) The loan program is subject to an intergovernmental agreement between the Iowa DOT and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). All public transit systems are eligible for loans under this program. The intent of the program is to increase the inherent energy conservation benefits of public transit by expediting the implementation of transit capital projects. The program allows no interest loans to transit systems, which the transit system uses towards the required local match on a federally-funded capital project, paying it back over a negotiated time period as local funds become available. The loan can be used to temporarily fund the entire local match on capital equipment projects or 50% of the required non-federal match on facility projects. Loan recipients may be required to report project energy savings annually to OPT until the loan is repaid. A project is eligible if it is a transit capital project that is approved for federal funding. The project should be targeted at energy savings. The public transit system may submit a request at any time. The request shall include, but not be limited to, the following topics and documents: a. A description and cost estimate of the proposed project. b. An explanation of the benefits to be gained from the project, including how the project will save energy. c. An explanation and justification of need for the loan. d. A proposed schedule of when funds will be needed for the project. e. A proposed loan repayment plan. The director of OPT will review the loan request based on available funds and project eligibility. Upon approval, the public transit system will be offered a contract designating the amount of the loan and the repayment schedule. Note that all funding agreements between the Iowa DOT and transit agencies include the provision that all payments will be withheld to any transit system delinquent in Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 46

51 4.0 Funding loan repayments. If repayments are not received in a reasonable timeframe, the transit system's STA funding may be applied to the loan repayment obligation. Based on the agreement between Iowa DOT and DNR, if loan funds are not needed to expedite transit capital projects, they may be used as no interest loans to individuals for the purchase of vans for vanpooling. The administrative rules for the Transit Capital Match Revolving Loans are found in Chapter 923 of the department s administrative rules. Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF) In 2006, the Iowa Legislature established a new program to fund some of the vertical infrastructure needs of Iowa s transit systems. Applications are accepted as part of the annual Consolidated Transit Funding Applications. Projects can involve new construction, reconstruction or remodeling, but must include a vertical component to qualify. They are evaluated based on the anticipated benefits to transit, as well as the ability to have projects completed quickly. The infrastructure program participation in the cost of transit-related elements of a facility project is limited to 80% and cannot, in combination with federal funding, exceed that number. Also no single system can receive more than 40% of the available infrastructure funding in a given year. Additional specifics of the program can be found in Chapter 924 of the department s administrative rules. Federal Funding Programs FTA Section Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program This is a federal program for support of transit capital needs that exceed what can be funded under the federal formula programs. All public transit systems are eligible for these funds. Public agencies may receive these funds directly. Private non-profit transit agencies may not apply directly, but can be part of a statewide application. This federal program provides discretionary funding of transit capital improvements on an 80% federal, 20% non-federal matching basis (83% federal, 17% non-federal for vehicles equipped to meet ADA and Clean Air standards). In most recent years, all 5309 funding has been earmarked by Congress through the authorization or appropriation processes. Iowa s Congressional delegation has been successful in capturing a portion of these funds for both individual system earmarks and a statewide bus earmark. The statewide funds are allocated to rollingstock replacementrehabilitation projects in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) using a ranking process based on the age and accumulated mileage of vehicles being replacedrehabilitated. This will be described later as part of the discussion of the Public Transit Equipment and Facilities Management System in Chapter 10. Rules and procedures relating to the 5309 program are found in FTA Circular A. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 47

52 4.0 Funding FTA Section Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities & FTA Section Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program This is a federal program for support of transit services serving elderly and disabled persons. These funds are allocated to Iowa on the basis of the number of persons who are elderly or have disabilities within the state compared to other states. By law, the state is the direct recipient of the funding. Public agencies responsible for coordinating human service transportation are eligible, as are private not-for-profit agencies. Because Iowa requires the designated public transit systems to coordinate all publicly-funded passenger transportation services, Iowa distributes these funds to the public transit agencies. The funds may be used for the cost of contracted operations, equipment and passenger or vehicle shelters on an 80% federal, and 20% non-federal basis. Purchase of vehicles equipped for access by persons with disabilities can be funded at 83% federal participation. Facilities other than passenger or vehicle shelters are not eligible. The Iowa DOT s OPT is the recipient of the 5310 funds from FTA. Seventy percent of the annual funding is distributed to Iowa s large urban transit systems to support services to qualifying persons living in urbanized areas. These funds are distributed based on the same formula used for the rural systems, but with each transit system developing its own eligible project. The remaining 30% of the funds are administered and distributed in conjunction with Non-urbanized Area Formula Program 5311 funds. To simplify administration, the 5310 funds going to rural systems are only distributed to transit systems that purchase contracted transportation services. All projects using 5310 funding must derive from the Passenger Transportation Development Plan (TPDP) prepared by the respective metropolitan or regional planning agency through their joint public transithuman service transportation planning process. (See Chapter 4) All services supported with 5310 funding must be operated open to the general public. (Complementary ADA paratransit meets this requirement, so long as it matches up with an urban transit system s fixed-route hours and service area.) Federal guidance on the 5310 program is found in FTA Circular F. Section 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula Program This federal program supports transit activities in rural areas and communities with less than 50,000 population. These funds are allocated to Iowa based on the number of persons living outside urbanized areas compared to other states. By law, the state is the direct recipient of the funding. Iowa DOT serves as the direct recipient of the funds, through both the Office of Public Transit (OPT) and the Office of Systems Planning. The OPT administers the bulk of the 5311 funding that is provided to small urban and regional transit systems, as well as the 15% of the annual apportionment, that in conformance with federal law, is utilized to support intercity bus services, described later in this chapter. The Office of Systems Planning administers that portion of the 5311 funds that are combined with the 5304 funding to support rural transit and intermodal planning activities described in Chapter 4. The amount used Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 48

53 4.0 Funding for planning is determined on an annual basis between the offices of Public Transit and Systems Planning. The portion of the 5311 funds used for support of public transit services in Iowa is administered in conjunction with the rural portion of the 5310 funding. The 5311 funds may be used to support operating deficits (potentially on a 50% federal, 50% non-federal match), capital purchases (on an 80% federal, 20% non-federal match or 83% federal, 17% non-federal for vehicles meeting ADA and Clean Air standards), or planning activities (on an 80% federal, 20% non-federal match). State policy does not allow local transit administration costs for public transit systems to be treated any differently than operating expenses. The Iowa DOT formula allocating 5310 and 5311 funds uses the past year's performance statistics. The amount of formula funds to be distributed to small urban systems versus regional systems is determined by comparing the "net public deficit" (unrestricted tax support) for all urban systems to that for all regional systems. The individual allocations to small urban systems are then determined on the basis of 50 percent of the percentage of total small urban ridership accomplished by that system and 50 percent of the percentage of total small urban revenue miles provided by the individual system. Individual allocations for regional systems are based on 40 percent of the system's percentage contribution to total regional transit ridership and 60 percent on the system's percentage contribution to total regional revenue miles. See Exhibit 3 to see the formula with an example. The formula apportionment funds received by each system must be used to support services open to the public. This would include eligible transit capital or operating expenses as defined by the federal government. The decision of how the formula funds are programmed is a part of the local transportation planning and programming process conducted through the regional planning affiliation. OPT provides a projection of the formula funding that will be available to each system for the coming state fiscal year in early December, in order to facilitate integration of the 5311 programming process with the annual preparation of the Passenger Transportation Development Plan (PTDP) and the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). OPT decides which agencies will receive 5310 funds versus 5311 funds, based on how the transit systems will use of the monies. At present, most transit systems choose to use their formula funds for support of transit service costs. The 5310 funds are targeted to systems that purchase services from sub-providers, and 5311 funds are targeted first to systems that provide their services directly. To the extent that any system proposes to use its allocation for purchase of rolling stock to operate within an urbanized area, 5310 funds will be used (and the project will be included in that urbanized area's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).) If facility improvements are programmed with the formula funds, 5311 funding will be used. The federal requirements for the 5311 program are is described in FTA Circular F. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 49

54 4.0 Funding Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 50

55 4.0 Funding Section 5311 (b) (3) - Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) This federal program provides a source of funding to assist in the design and implementation of training and technical assistance programs and other support services tailored to meet the specific needs of transit operators in non-urbanized areas (less than 50,000 in population). By law, the state is the direct recipient of the funding. In Iowa, the DOT s OPT serves as the recipient of these funds. Federal guidance for the RTAP program is contained in FTA Circular F Iowa s RTAP funds are mainly used to provide local transit agencies training fellowships. The fellowships pay 50 percent of the cost for Iowa's small urban and regional transit systems and their planners to attend Iowa DOT sponsored seminars, as well as transit related courses or conferences sponsored by other groups. Transit systems may also be reimbursed for training held in-house. A parallel program funded with state transit assistance (STA) funds pays for costs incurred by large urban systems and their planners. Chapter 12 explains the procedures for receiving training fellowships. Additional RTAP projects funded by OPT include: Statewide training seminars Statewide annual driver roadeo Transit training library Transit marketing video Previously funded Iowa RTAP projects that continue to benefit transit systems in Iowa and around the nation are: Training video on bloodborne pathogen precautions Training video on coordination of transit services Internet connections project FTA Section 5311 (f) - Intercity Bus Assistance Program A minimum of 15 percent of each year's non-urbanized formula funds allocated to Iowa under the 5311 program is required to be set aside to support intercity bus transportation. Iowa s Intercity Bus Assistance Program is intended to support intercity bus service in rural and small urban areas. Private-for-profit companies, private non-profit corporations, or public entities may apply for this funding. Eligible bus service must make convenient connections to the existing national intercity bus network. Connections to Amtrak or passenger air service terminals are desirable. Service strictly for commuter purposes is not eligible. Projects may include operating assistance, capital assistance, planning, or administrative costs such as marketing and insurance. The Iowa Intercity Bus Assistance Program includes funding in four categories of projects developed as part of the Iowa DOT s 1999 state plan Iowa in Motion: Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 51

56 4.0 Funding Category 1 is support for continuation of existing services. Funding is available for providers of existing intercity bus service that apply and agree to reporting requirements. Category 1 projects pay $0.10revenue mile of scheduled route service that is justified based on preventive maintenance costs. Category 2 is support for new and expanded intercity bus service or feeders connecting to existing intercity bus services. It is not intended to support duplication of existing services. Projects pay up to $0.50mile based on preventive maintenance, insurance and administrative costs, and operating support for a maximum of two years. After two years, the service may receive support under Category 1. Category 3 is support for marketing of existing and new services. Preference is for cooperative projects with involvement by communities served. Projects may pay up to 80% of project administrationmarketing costs. Category 4 supports facility improvements or equipment purchases necessary for the support of existing or new intercity bus services. Projects pay up to 80% of approved project amounts (83% for purchase of accessible vehicles or 90% on accessibility retrofits of existing vehicles) based on actual costs. The Intercity Bus Assistance Program is included as a statewide total in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Annual intercity bus assistance applications must be received by OPT by the first business day of October for projects to begin in January. Project selections are finalized by December. FTA Section Job Access Reverse Commute Program (JARC) This is a federal program established to provide transportation services to access employment opportunities and support services (such as training and child care) for welfare recipients and low-income individuals. Services designed for these purposes may be used by the general public for any trip purpose. Each urbanized area over 200,000 population receives a separate annual apportionment of funding, and each state receives both an apportionment for use in urbanized areas under 200,000 population and a second apportionment for use in non-urbanized areas. The federal apportionments are based on census data concerning the number of low income individuals in each area, but the law requires that a competitive project selection process must be administered for each of these apportionment areas. All projects must derive from the area s Passenger Transportation Development Plan (PTDP), developed through collaboration of public transit and human service interests. See Chapter 4 of this handbook for more information on the PTDP process. Required match (50% of net cost for operating projects and 80% for capital [83% for ADA vehicles]) can come from any non-dot federal funds, as well as from state or local government or from private sources. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 52

57 4.0 Funding The OPT accepts applications for JARC projects under the small urbanized areas apportionment or the non-urbanized areas apportionment as part of its Consolidated Transit Funding Application due the first business day of May each year. If any funding remains unobligated after those applications are processed, a second round of applications may be solicited. The competitive application process in the Des Moines, Omaha-Council Bluffs and Quad Cities areas are each administered locally. For further information contact Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (Omaha), or the Bi-State Regional Commission (Quad Cities). The majority of the grants in Iowa are to transit agencies to extend hours into the evenings and weekends. Other projects established new services to connect employment centers not previously served by transit, or purchased vehicles used for service expansions. FTA Section New Freedom This is a federal program established under SAFETEA-LU to support new services or accommodations for persons with disabilities that go beyond the minimums established by the rules implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. New is defined as projects that were not implemented or programmed prior to the signing of SAFETEA-LU (August 10, 2005). What can be considered to be beyond the minimums required by the ADA is discussed at length in FTA s guidance for the New Freedom program Circular FTA C As with the JARC program, each urbanized area over 200,000 population receives a separate annual apportionment of funding, and each state receives both an apportionment for use in urbanized areas under 200,000 population and a second apportionment for use in non-urbanized areas. The federal apportionments are based on census data concerning the number of persons with disabilities in each area, but the law requires that a competitive project selection process must be administered for each of these apportionments. All projects must derive from the area s Passenger Transportation Development Plan (PTDP), developed through collaboration of public transit and human service interests. See Chapter 4 of this handbook for more information on the PTDP process. Required match (50% of net cost for operating projects and 80% for capital [83% for ADA vehicles]) can come from any non-dot federal funds, as well as from state or local government or from private sources. The OPT accepts applications for New Freedom projects under the small urbanized areas apportionment or the non-urbanized areas apportionment as part of its Consolidated Transit Funding Application due the first business day of May each Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 53

58 4.0 Funding year. If any funding remains unobligated after those applications are processed, a second round of applications may be solicited. Surface Transportation Program (STP) This is another of FHWA's core programs. These funds come to the state based on a number of factors including Vehicle Miles of Travel, Highway Lane Miles and the Number and Size of Bridges. The funds can be used for roadway, transit capital projects, pedestrianbikeway projects, or intermodal planning projects on an 80% federal, 20% local basis. In Iowa, a portion of these funds is programmed by local governments acting through metropolitan or regional planning agencies. Nearly all of Iowa RPAs and some MPOs fund a portion of their intermodal transportation planning activities from STP funds. Most transit systems have also been successful in receiving STP funding from their local MPO or RPA. When programmed for transit or planning projects, these funds are transferred from FHWA to FTA for administration, either through a direct 5307 grant for large urban transit systems, through a statewide 5311 grant for small urban or regional systems, or through the statewide consolidated planning grant for planning projects. OPT administers the statewide grant for individual small urban and regional transit systems. The Office of Systems Planning administers the planning grant. Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP) This program is one of the five core funding programs of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that can be flexed between highway, transit or bicyclepedestrian uses. Nationally, the Congestion MitigationAir Quality (CMAQ) program is intended to fund transportation projects to assist metropolitan areas in violation of Clean Air Act standards. In those states with areas in violation, most or all CMAQ monies must be spent in the affected areas for projects conforming to a state air quality implementation plan. Because Iowa does not have any area in violation of transportation-related federal clean air standards, the state receives a minimum allocation of CMAQ funding that can be used anywhere in the state for any purpose for which STP funds can be used on the same 80% federal, 20% non-federal basis. In Iowa, funds are programmed for highway or transit projects through a statewide application process based on the project's anticipated air quality or congestion relief benefits. Applications are due the first business day of October for projects to begin the following federal fiscal year. Project selections are determined in February. When ICAAP funds are programmed for transit projects, funding is transferred from FHWA to FTA for administration through statewide grant under either the 5307 or 5311 programs depending on whether the projects are in urbanized or non-urbanized areas. Additional information is available in the Iowa DOT Funding Guide available on the web. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 54

59 4.0 Funding Non-DOT Funding Programs Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Program This program is a federal block grant program aimed at assisting low-income families and individuals and other disadvantaged groups. The primary focus of this block grant program is to remove obstacles that block the achievement of self-sufficiency and to help individuals find and keep jobs. Community Transportation Association - Transportation Lending Services Corporation The transportation Lending Services Corporation is run by the Community Transportation Association of America and has several mechanisms to help fund transportation projects. They offer 5 methods of funding, all of which can be used as local share for grant matches in most cases and offer low interest rates. They offer Long-Term Direct Loans, Short-Term Direct Loans, Lease PurchasesBuyback Options, Equity and Partnership Financing and Credit Enhancement Options. National Center for Senior Transportation The National Center on Senior Transportation (NCST) offers grants that increase transportation options for the elderly, simplify older adults access to transportation services and increase the quality of transportation for older adults. They offer grants ranging from 50,000 to 90,000 dollars and require no local match. Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 55

60 4.0 Funding 4.2 Funding Estimates Identifying the amount of future funding is critical to developing future public transportation projects. By anticipating the amount of funding that will be available projects can be better prioritized. Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 show the estimated amount of funding available for each public transit agency in the Region 16 Planning Area. In addition to these estimates, Figure 4.4 includes estimates for local transit levy in each of the communities in Southeast Iowa. These funding estimates were based on information provided by the FTA, Iowa DOT, and transportation providers. Figure 4.1 SEIBUS Funding Estimates FY Funding Program FFY2009 FFY2010 FFY2011 FFY $ - $ - $ - $ $ 151,304 $ 171,071 $ 190,838 $ 210, $ - $ - $ - $ $ 5,380 $ 5,237 $ 5,094 $ 4,951 STA Formula $ 208,206 $ 208,206 $ 208,206 $ 208,206 STA Special Projects $ - $ - $ - $ - RIIF $ - $ - $ - $ - ICAAP $ - $ - $ - $ - STP $ 1,770,000 $ 1,769,000 $ 1,767,000 $1,767,000 Figure 4.2 BUS Funding Estimates FY Funding Program FFY2009 FFY2010 FFY2011 FFY $ - $ - $ - $ $ 196,281 $ 194,775 $ 193,269 $ 191, $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,811 $ 2,767 $ 2,723 $ 2,679 STA Formula $ 126,126 $ 126,126 $ 126,126 $ 126,126 STA Special Projects $ - $ - $ - $ - RIIF $ - $ - $ - $ - ICAAP $ - $ - $ - $ - STP $ 1,770,000 $ 1,769,000 $ 1,767,000 $1,767,000 Transit Levy $ 232,313 $ 232,313 $ 232,313 $ 232,313 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 56

61 4.0 Funding Figure Transit Funding Estimates FY Funding Program FFY2009 FFY2010 FFY2011 FFY $ - $ - $ - $ $ 454,178 $ 467,371 $ 480,564 $ 493, $ - $ - $ - $ $ 22,562 $ 21,743 $ 20,924 $ 20,105 STA Formula $ 314,291 $ 314,291 $ 314,291 $ 314,291 STA Special Projects $ - $ - $ - $ - RIIF $ - $ - $ - $ - ICAAP $ - $ - $ - $ - STP $ 1,770,000 $ 1,769,000 $ 1,767,000 $1,767,000 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 57

62 4.0 Funding Figure 4.4 Region 16 Potential Transit Tax Levy Values 2006 Taxable City Name Maximum Levy Value Potential Transit Levy Value Burlington $ 571,319,213 x = $ 542,753 Columbus City $ 4,366,430 x = $ 4,148 Columbus Junction $ 31,003,249 x = $ 29,453 Coppock $ 302,020 x = $ 287 Cotter $ 548,626 x = $ 521 Danville $ 13,990,007 x = $ 13,291 Donnellson $ 16,659,452 x = $ 15,826 Fort Madison $ 211,766,435 x = $ 201,178 Franklin $ 1,844,456 x = $ 1,752 Fredonia $ 1,895,239 x = $ 1,800 Grandview $ 7,197,790 x = $ 6,838 Hillsboro $ 1,807,837 x = $ 1,717 Houghton $ 7,059,104 x = $ 6,706 Keokuk $ 276,202,668 x = $ 262,393 Letts $ 5,273,532 x = $ 5,010 Mediapolis $ 31,962,297 x = $ 30,364 Middletown $ 4,612,781 x = $ 4,382 Montrose $ 13,314,924 x = $ 12,649 Morning Sun $ 10,772,513 x = $ 10,234 Mount Pleasant $ 210,096,599 x = $ 199,592 Mount Union $ 2,034,621 x = $ 1,933 New London $ 28,921,112 x = $ 27,475 Oakville $ 8,340,890 x = $ 7,924 Olds $ 4,102,551 x = $ 3,897 Rome $ 842,430 x = $ 800 Salem $ 3,736,395 x = $ 3,550 St. Paul $ 2,879,770 x = $ 2,736 Wapello $ 35,843,339 x = $ 34,051 Wayland $ 14,812,916 x = $ 14,072 West Burlington $ 89,540,879 x = $ 85,064 West Point $ 21,295,426 x = $ 20,231 Westwood $ 3,714,970 x = $ 3,529 Winfield $ 17,825,485 x = $ 16,934 Total $ 1,573,092 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 58

63 5.0 Passenger Transportation Improvement Program 5.1 Overview The Passenger Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) section includes a listing of all transit projects throughout the Southeast Iowa region that will seek federal funding. This includes a detailed TIP for Fiscal Years by funding source. The TIP is a key element of the Passenger TDP as any project that seeks federal funding must be included in the TIP. All capital projects for each transportation provider included in the TIP came from the Passenger Transportation Provider Fact Sheets included in Appendix A. Also included is a discussion of how the projects listed for each funding source fits with the various needs addressed in Section 3.0: Evaluation of Needs. 5.2 Southeast Iowa Regional BUS (SEIBUS) Figure 5.1 SEIBUS Projects for FY2009 TIP Funding Source Project Description Type of Project Total Cost Federal Share State Share Local Share General Operations Operations $ 570,000 $ 151,304 $ 208,206 $ 210,490 RPA Planning Planning $ 26,190 $ 20,952 $ - $ 5,238 Replace #971 with 5309 LD Bus Capital $ 67,000 $ 55,610 $ - $ 11, Replace #961 with LD Bus Capital $ 67,000 $ 55,610 $ - $ 11, Replace #973 with LD Bus Capital $ 67,000 $ 55,610 $ - $ 11, Associated Capital Maintenance Capital $ 30,000 $ 24,000 $ - $ 6,000 Administrative Equipment Capital $ 7,000 $ 5,600 $ - $ 1,400 Henry County Senior Transportation Operations $ 30,000 $ 24,000 $ - $ 6,000 East-West Staffing Employee Project Transportation $ 59,696 $ 29,848 $ - $ 29,848 Figure 5.2 SEIBUS Projects for FY2010 TIP Funding Source Project Description Total $ 923,886 $ 422,534 $ 208,206 $ 293,146 Type of Project Total Cost Federal Share State Share Local Share 5311 General Operations Operations $ 570,000 $ 171,071 $ 208,206 $ 190,723 RPA Planning Planning $ 26,190 $ 20,952 $ - $ 5, Replace #991 with LD Bus Capital $ 67,000 $ 55,610 $ - $ 11, Associated Capital Maintenance Capital $ 30,000 $ 24,000 $ - $ 6,000 Total $ 693,190 $ 271,633 $ 208,206 $ 213,351 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 59

64 5.0 Passenger Transportation Improvement Program Figure 5.3 SEIBUS Projects for FY2011 TIP Funding Source Project Description Type of Project Total Cost Federal Share State Share Local Share 5311 General Operations Operations $ 570,000 $ 190,838 $ 208,206 $ 170,956 RPA Planning Planning $ 26,190 $ 20,952 $ - $ 3,472 Figure 5.4 SEIBUS Projects for FY2012 TIP Funding Source Project Description Total $ 596,190 $ 211,790 $ 208,206 $ 174,428 Type of Project Total Cost Federal Share State Share Local Share 5311 General Operations Operations $ 570,000 $ 210,605 $ 208,206 $ 151,189 RPA Planning Planning $ 26,190 $ 20,952 $ - $ 3, Burlington Urban Service (BUS) Figure 5.5 BUS Projects for FY2009 TIP Funding Source Project Description Total $ 596,190 $ 231,557 $ 208,206 $ 154,661 Type of Project Total Cost Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost 5311 General Operations Operations $ 556,000 $ 196,281 $ 126,126 $ 233,593 Replace #701 with 25' 5309 MD Bus Capital $ 125,000 $ 103,750 $ - $ 21, Replace #702 with 25' MD Bus Capital $ 125,000 $ 103,750 $ - $ 21, Replace #703 with 25' MD Bus Capital $ 125,000 $ 103,750 $ - $ 21, Replace #704 with 25' MD Bus Capital $ 125,000 $ 103,750 $ - $ 21, Replace #705 with 25' MD Bus Capital $ 125,000 $ 103,750 $ - $ 21, Replace #706 with 25' MD Bus Capital $ 125,000 $ 103,750 $ - $ 21, Bus cameras for entire BUS fleet (11 buses) Capital $ 40,456 $ 32,365 $ - $ 8,091 Total $ 1,346,456 $ 851,146 $ 126,126 $ 369,184 Figure 5.6 BUS Projects for FY2010 TIP Funding Source Project Description Type of Project Total Cost Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost 5311 General Operations Operations $ 556,000 $ 194,775 $ 126,126 $ 235,099 Total $ 556,000 $ 194,775 $ 126,126 $ 235,099 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 60

65 5.0 Passenger Transportation Improvement Program Figure 5.7 BUS Projects for FY2011 TIP Funding Source Project Description Type of Project Total Cost Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost 5311 General Operations Operations $ 556,000 $ 193,269 $ 126,126 $ 236,605 Figure 5.8 BUS Projects for FY2012 TIP Total $ 556,000 $ 193,269 $ 126,126 $ 236,605 Funding Source Project Description Type of Project Total Cost Federal Cost State Cost Local Cost 5311 General Operations Operations $ 556,000 $ 191,763 $ 126,126 $ 238,111 Total $ 556,000 $ 191,763 $ 126,126 $ 238,111 Region 16 Passenger Transit Development Plan 61

66 APPENDIX A - PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER FACT SHEETS

67 Form wd (10-07) PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER FACT SHEET Data current as of December 7, 2007 (Date) 1. Provider Name: Southeast Iowa Bus (Seibus) Transit System Affiliation: Designated Public Transit System Contractor to Designated System None Contact Person Doug Roelfs Telephone Number x General description of Passenger Transportation Operations: a. Type of service(s): General Public Services b. Groups served: All General Public c. Service area: Des Moines County, Louisa County, Henry County, the City of Fort Madison and the City of Keokuk d. Service hours and days of operation: Monday through Friday Saturday 6:30 AM - 5:30 PM As Needed Sundays and holidays As Needed e. Number of employees involved in your passenger transportation: Full-time Part-time Volunteers Administrative Maintenance Drivers f. Receive governmental (public) funding? Yes No 3. Fare Structure: $2.50 for one way ride anywhere in region $25.00 for monthly pass anywhere in region $25.00 for Medical Shuttly to and from Iowa City on Tuesdays and Thursdays $3.00 for one way ride for JARC Project from Burlington to Tyson Plant in Columbus Junction $3.00 for one way ride for JARC Project from Burlington to Scotts Plant in Fort Madison

68 4. Vehicle fleet: Number of vehicles: Buses: 15 Vans: 9 Station Wagons: 0 Sedans: 0 Other: 0 Number of vehicles with: Wheelchair LiftsRamps: 22 Two-way RadiosPhones: 0 5. Performance: (Last Year) from: to: Actual Operating: Passengers 86, (Current Year) from: to: Projected Wheelchair Lift Operations Performed NA NA Revenue Miles 319,380 Revenue Hours 17, Financial: Operating Expenses $681,915 Operating Revenues $376,024 Capital Expenses 6. Other information:

69 FLEET UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Transportation Provider: Seibus Date Prepared: January 30, 2007 Vehicle: Model YearBody Manufacturer and Model Fleet ID No. of Seats Wheelchairs Base Location Assignments No. of Hours Per Week Used Is it Used EvgWknd? Projected Annual Miles Burlington Tyson Burlington Spare Henry County Spare Burlington Junk Burlington Spare - Hope Haven Burlington Tyson Burlington Spare - Des Moines County Fort Madison GP Burlington Tyson Inpropco Cottonwood Wayland Wayland Burlington Hope Haven Mt. Pleasant Hope Haven Mt. Pleasant Henry County CPC Mt. Pleasant EastWest Mt. Pleasant Henry County GP Burlington Louisa and Des Moines CPC Louisa County CPC Burlington Spare Keokuk Keokuk GP Burlington Tyson Burlington DesMoines CPC and GP Ft. Madison Inpropco

70 Mt. Pleasant Henry County Health Burlington Tyson Burlington Spare FLEET REPLACEMENT REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Transportation Provider: Vehicle: Model YearBody Manufacturer Model Fleet ID No. of Seats Wheelchairs Vehicle Equipment Previously Rehabbed Mileage as of Current FY Proposed Work FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Example: 1996 El Dorado Aerotech 1996 Ford Supreme 1997 Ford Supreme 1997 Ford Supreme 1999 Ford Supreme L No 162,241 Rep L No 216,200 Rep L No 146,845 Rep L No 202,823 Rep

71 Form wd (10-07) PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER FACT SHEET Data current as of JAN 14, 2008 (Date) 1. Provider Name: BURLINGTON URBAN SERVICE Transit System Affiliation: Designated Public Transit System Contractor to Designated System None Contact Person STEVE HARTMAN Telephone Number General description of Passenger Transportation Operations: a. Type of service(s): ROUTE DEVIATION & SUBSCRIPTION, DEMAND RESPONSE b. Groups served: ALL c. Service area: CITIES OF BURLINGTON AND WEST BURLINGTON d. Service hours and days of operation: Monday through Friday 05:00 TO 17:40 Saturday 08:00 TO 16:40 Sundays and holidays NO SERVICE e. Number of employees involved in your passenger transportation: Full-time Part-time Volunteers Administrative Maintenance Drivers f. Receive governmental (public) funding? Yes No 3. Fare Structure: CASH: $1.25 W ONE TRANSFER TOKENS: 4$4.00 OR 20$20.00 MONTHLY PASS: $18.50 ANNUAL PASS: $150.00

72 4. Vehicle fleet: Number of vehicles: Buses: 11 Vans: 0 Station Wagons: 0 Sedans: 0 Other: 0 Number of vehicles with: Wheelchair LiftsRamps: 11 Two-way RadiosPhones: Performance: (Last Year) from: to: Operating: Actual Passengers 131,847 Wheelchair Lift Operations Performed NOT RECORDED Revenue Miles 182,581 Revenue Hours 12,362 JULY0 6 JUNE0 7 (Current Year) from: to: Projected Financial: Operating Expenses $724,288 Operating Revenues $79,376 Capital Expenses 6. Other information:

73 FLEET UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Transportation Provider: Burlington Urban Service Date Prepared: Vehicle: Model YearBody Manufacturer and Model Fleet ID No. of Seats Wheelchairs Base Location What type of service is it performing? No. of Hours Per Week Used Is it Used EvgWknd? Projected Annual Miles 1996 Bluebird 701d 19 1 Public Works Bldg Routes Varies Rarely 9, Bluebird 702d 24 1 PWB RTS Varies Rarely 10, Bluebird 703d 24 1 PWB RTS Varies Rarely 11, Bluebird 704d 24 1 PWB RTS Varies Rarely 13, Bluebird 705d 24 1 PWB RTS Varies Rarely 9, Ford 706d 16 2 PWB RTS Varies occasionally 24, Ford 707d 16 2 PWB RTS Varies Occasionall y 2000 Ford PWB RTS Varies Saturday Shuttle 24,450 25, International PWB RTS Varies Rarely 18, Frieghtliner PWB RTS Varies Rarely 20, Ford PWB RTS Varies Rarely 15,530

74 FLEET REPLACEMENT REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Transportation Provider: BURLINGTON URBAN SERVICE Vehicle: Model YearBody Manufacturer Model Example: 1996 El Dorado Aerotech Fleet ID No. of Seats Wheelchairs Vehicle Equipment Previously Rehabbed Mileage as of Current FY Proposed Work FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY Bluebird 704d 24 1 L,MR,F 216, Bluebird 705d 24 1 L,MR,F 205, Ford 706d 16 2 L,MR.F 201, Bluebird 701d 19 1 L,MR,F 168, Bluebird 702d 24 1 L,MR,F 200, Bluebird 703d 24 1 L,MR,F 206, Equipment Code: L = Wheelchair Lift; R = Wheelchair Ramp; MR = Mobile Radio; F = Farebox; MDT = Mobile Data TerminalComputer; SC = Security Camera Type of Improvement: REP = Replace; REHAB = Rehabilitate

75 Form wd (10-07) PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER FACT SHEET Data current as of December 4, 2007 (Date) 1. Provider Name: Ten-Fifteen Regional Transit Agency (10-15 Transit) Transit System Affiliation: Designated Public Transit System Contractor to Designated System None Contact Person Pam Ward Telephone Number General description of Passenger Transportation Operations: a. Type of service(s): Paratransit and demand-response services b. Groups served: Elderly, Headstart pupils, disabled and sheltered workshop clients, public school students, and the general public. c. Service area: Appanoose, Davis, Jefferson, Keokuk, Lee, Lucas, Mahaska, Monroe, Van Buren, Wapello and Wayne Counties. d. Service hours and days of operation: Monday through Friday Saturday 6 am to 6 pm -- other hours available upon demand. on demand Sundays and holidays on demand e. Number of employees involved in your passenger transportation: Full-time Part-time Volunteers Administrative Maintenance Drivers f. Receive governmental (public) funding? Yes No 3. Fare Structure: Suggested contributions for Seneca Contract. Most fares are based on an hourly rate of $18.50hour.

76 4. Vehicle fleet: Number of vehicles: Buses: 48 Vans: Station Wagons: Sedans: Other: Number of vehicles with: Wheelchair LiftsRamps: 48 Two-way RadiosPhones: Performance: (Last Year) from: to: (Current Year) from: to: Actual Projected Operating: Passengers 232, ,000 Wheelchair Lift Operations Performed NA NA Revenue Miles 940, ,000 Revenue Hours 48,899 49, Financial: Operating Expenses $1,484,529 $1,485,000 Operating Revenues $1,573,772 $1,574,000 Capital Expenses $327,014 $300, Other information:

77 FLEET UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Transportation Provider: Transit Date Prepared: January 30, 2008 Vehicle: Model YearBody Manufacturer and Model Fleet ID No. of Seats Wheelchairs Base Location Assignments No. of Hours Per Week Used Is it Used EvgWknd? Projected Annual Miles 2003 Ford ElDorado 032L 14 2 Lee Co Gen Pub, Children First, Drop in Center Varies No 45, Ford Supreme 012L 29 0 Lee Co Back-up Varies No 16, International ElDorado 1998 International ElDorado 982L 33 0 Lee Co CPC Clients, Lee Co 981L 33 0 Lee Co General Public, CPC Clients, Lee Co No 29, No 37, Ford Supreme 972L 17 0 Lee Co General Public, CPC Clients 40 No 34,064

78 FLEET REPLACEMENT REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Transportation Provider: Rta Vehicle: Model YearBody Manufacturer Model Fleet ID No. of Seats Wheelchairs Vehicle Equipment Previously Rehabbed Mileage as of Current FY 2008 Proposed Work FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Example: 1996 El Dorado Aerotech 2003 Ford ElDorado 2001 Ford Supreme 1998 International ElDorado 1998 International ElDorado 1997 Ford Supreme 032L ,481 Rep 012L ,960 Rep 982L ,024 Rep 981L ,525 Rep 972L ,675 Rep

79 APPENDIX B - PRIVATE AND NON-PROFIT TRANSPORTAITON PROVIDERS

80 Provider Phone # Legal Structure Service Structure Driver Status Trip types Tripsmo # Vehicles Service Needs Coordiantion RSVP Non-profit Direct Volunteer Medical 35 use Volunteer's Conflicts with public service, Iowa City Yes New London Nursing Non-profit sub-contract Paid na na 0 Multiple Wheel Chair vans Yes Pleasant Manor Care Cente For profit Direct Paid Medical Handicapped lift (not WC lift) Yes American Cancer Society Non-profit sub-contract volunteer Medical 0 0 Work with RSVP and DHS Yes Burlington Care Cnt For profit Direct Paid Med, Rec, Work, O ~100 1 Evening and night time Yes Danville Care Cent For profit na Paid ($80rnd) Medical 12 0 Happy w current service No Park View Care Cent For profit Direct Paid Medical Depends 1 Needs are being met Yes Rosebush Gardens For profit Dir and sub Paid Medical A lot 2 vans Nothing at this time Yes Prarie Ridge Care For profit Dir and sub Paid Medical ADA vans Social events, med trans BRL to Media Yes Home Caring Srvs Non-profit Direct Paid Medical na 0 Yes FM Comm Hosp Non-profit Direct Paid Medical 25 1 Need ADA vehicles No River Hills Village For profit Direct Paid Groc, Med, Rec, Re bus, 1 car Needs being met Yes American Cab For proft Direct Paid All A lot Needs being met Yes West Point Care Cent For profit Direct Paid Medical 3 1 Availability for med appointments No Morning Sun Care Cent For profit na Paid Med, Rec, van Need lift for large wheel chair Yes Comfort Keepers For profit Direct Paid Groc, Med, Rec, Re 80 0 Need ADA vehicle, transp for clients Yes Lexington Square For profit Direct Paid Med, Rec, Relig ~130 LD ADA bus (lease from SEIBUS) Needs being met Yes The Willows Asst Living For Profit Direct Paid Med, Rec, Relig na Auto, bus, van na na Hope Haven Dev Center Non profit Dir and Indir Paid Med, Emp, Rec ~130 ADA vans (lease from SEIBUS) na Yes Donnellson Health Cent For profit Direct Paid Med, Rec, Relig na Van na na The Kensington For profit Direct Paid Med, Rec, Relig ~400 LD ADA bus (lease from SEIBUS) na Yes Keokuk Health Systems Non profit SEIBUS Med ~100 LD ADA bus Needs being met Yes Dept of Human Services Non profit Direct Volunteer Med na One Veh for each County in SE IA More vehicles to provide services Yes Henry Co Health Center Non-profit Dir and Indir Paid Med na LD ADA bus (lease from SEIBUS) na Yes

81 APPENDIX C - SEIBUS FACILITY NEEDS STUDY

82 Region 16 Transit Facility Feasibility Study June, 2006 Revised December, 2006 Prepared for: Iowa Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Southeast Iowa Regional Transit Authority, Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission Board of Directors This study was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and the State of Iowa.

83 Region 16 Transit Facility Feasibility Study Prepared by: Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission Copyright 2006, Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission The preparation of this document was financed in part through federal and state funds provided by the State of Iowa, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

84 Table of Contents Section Page Introduction 1 Brief History of SEIBUS 1 Current Conditions 3 Current Facility Space 3 Current Transit Service 5 Current Fleet Information 6 Current Facility Needs 6 Projected Space Requirements 7 Alternatives 9 Location Analysis 18 Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

85 INTRODUCTION Study Purpose: Evaluate what type of facility is most feasible for the Region 16 Transit Authority, operated by SEIBUS. Potential Study Outcomes: Recommend the need for a facility and typical characteristics of facility Recommend a no build option Recommend further study Some reasons for building a facility include: There is no adequate space to house primary and reserve vehicles There is not adequate space to perform dispatchadministration duties There is no space to wash vehicles Sufficient maintenance space is unavailable Using private contractors for maintenance is cost ineffective over long run Well-maintained vehicles last longer, saving public money and making more efficient use of publicly-funded equipment. SEIBUS sees a need for a facility due to its increased services and thus an ncreased demand on its vehicles. There is a demonstrated need for an indoor storage and maintenance facility, both of which are anticipated will lower operating costs for the transit system over an extended period of time and increase public transit vehicle life. This study will list current conditions, the current and future needs of SEIBUS, and alternative courses of action including a no-build alternative. After this information is listed and analyzed, the report will recommend a preferred alternative. The report will also detail the results of meetings held by the SEIRPC Facilities Committee and their locational analysis. Brief History of SEIBUS The Southeast Iowa Bus (SEIBUS) is operated by the Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) under contract Des Moines, Henry, and Louisa counties, which consist of the Region 16 Transit Service Region. SEIBUS also contracts with the cities of Fort Madison and Keokuk in Lee County. SEIRPC signed contracts with the Region 16 Transit Service Region in July, 2004, to be the designated transit provider in their respective counties. This service includes, but is not limited to, county mental health clients and general public transportation. SEIRPC assumed the duties from the Southeast Iowa Community Action Agency, who provided the service through June 30, Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 1 -

86 Region 16 was credited with 24,589 rides in FY2004 after Lee County designated service to Transit from Ottumwa and Head Start rides were no longer provided by either regional transit agency, and therefore not counted in official subsidy statistics. In FY2005 SEIBUS was credited with providing 61,000 rides, a 154% increase over the FY2004 statistics. SEIBUS provided 84,659 rides in FY2006, an increase of 39% over FY2005 and an increase of 247% over FY2004. Please see the below table that demonstrates the two-year growth. Figure 1 Fiscal Year % Increase, Rides 24,589 64,981 85, % Miles 167, , ,450 60% Hours 8,731 11,018 15,598 79% Op Expense $ 373,447 $ 435,936 $ 549,361 47% The growth in transit services corresponds with increased growth in rolling stock inventory. SEIBUS started with 13 vehicles in 2004 and is now operating with 25 vehicles. This growth increases the demand for maintenance services as well. An increase in services also increases needs in other areas of transit operation: storage needs, maintenance needs, dispatch space, driver service needs, etc. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 2 -

87 CURRENT CONDITIONS The current conditions of the SEIBUS system regarding facilities will be assessed by the following categories: current facility space, dispatch space, current transit service, current fleet, facility needs and projected space requirements. CURRENT FACILITY SPACE SEIBUS has no facilities it has only storage areas. Currently SEIBUS stores 85% of its vehicles outside. The storage locations vary, and are located in Ft Madison, Keokuk, Wapello and Burlington. The storage locations and their amenities are listed below. The main focus will be on the Burlington facility, due to the high number of buses stored here. SEIBUS Outdoor Storage Facilities Figure 1 Locked Electricity Water Paved Accessory Storage Burlington Y Y N N Y Ft Madison N N N N N Keokuk N Y N Y N Mt Pleasant N Y N Y N Burlington Storage Site The Burlington storage site is currently leased from the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport for a cost of $130 per month plus utilities (depending on number of buses stored). Electricity was added to the site at SEIBUS expense. The area is shared with garbage trucks and potentially any other leased use the airport wishes, which increases security concerns. At any given time, 13 buses and 3 vans are stored at this facility. This represents a majority of the SEIBUS fleet. The site has a gravel base and no overhead protection. A chain-link fence with lockable gate surrounds the site, but have SEIBUS vehicles have been vandalized in the past. Accessories for the buses, like fluids and cleaning supplies are able to be stored on site in a small accessory shed. There are no washing facilities. Fort Madison Storage Site There are four vans stored at the Fort Madison site. Two vans each (one main, one backup) are stored here for SEIBUS and the City of Fort Madison, which leases a van from SEIBUS for general public transportation purposes. The storage is located at the City of Fort Madison s Oakland Cemetery facility, where other public works vehicles are stored. This site is locked, has some storage and has electricity. There are no washing facilities. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 3 -

88 Keokuk Storage Site The Keokuk storage site is actually a SEIBUS driver s house. The area is not locked, has no overhead protection and limited access to electricity and water. One bus is stored at this site. Mt Pleasant Storage Site The Mt Pleasant storage site is located in a county machine shed, located on the eastern edge of Mt Pleasant on the county home property. Four buses and one van are stored at this site. This shed is unheated, but does have electricity available. The floor of the shed is graveldirt and there are no washing or maintenance facilities. The shed is able to be locked, but SEIBUS does not have exclusive use of the shed. There are other county departments that use the shed and thus have access to SEIBUS equipment. Wapello Storage Site The Wapello storage site is a driver s home, and includes limited availability to electricity and storage. There is no overhead shelter available and the site is not locked. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 4 -

89 CURRENT TRANSIT SERVICE SEIBUS currently provides for transit service for the counties of Des Moines, Henry and Louisa, and the cities of Ft Madison and Keokuk. These services are all open to the general public and are listed below. Figure 2 shows all SEIBUS direct services and the cost of each service. Figure 2 Name of Route Type of Route Stops Days of Operation Times of Operation Cost Des Moines County Demand Response Lee Co. Recyclers, Ft. Madison IA MonWedFri 6:30-8:30am2:45-4:45pm $12.62 per ride Hope Haven Workshop, Burlington IA Mon - Fri Des Moines County Scheduled Route Great River Medical Center, West Burlington IA TueWedThur 9:30-10:30am1:00-2:30pm $2 per ride$15 monthly pass General Public Walmart, West Burlington IA Burlington Railroad Depot, Burlington IA Louisa County Scheduled Route Great River Medical Center, West Burlington IA TueWedThur 8:30-10:00am1:00-3:30pm $2 per ride$15 monthly pass General Public Walmart, West Burlington IA Burlington Railroad Depot, Burlington IA Louisa County Demand Response Odessa Residential Facility, Wapello IA Mon - Fri 6:30-9:45am1:30-5:00pm $14.94 per ride Crossroads Workshop, Muscatine IA Hope Haven Workshop, Burlington IA Henry County Demand Response Flex Workshop, Mt. Pleasant IA Mon - Fri 7:30am-4:00pm $6.09 per ride Henry County Demand Response TueWedThur 9:00am-3:00pm $2 per ride$15 monthly pass General Public Ft. Madison Demand Response MonWedFri 11:00am-3:00pm $2 per ride$15 monthly pass General Public Keokuk Demand Response MonWedFri 11:00am-3:00pm $2 per ride$15 monthly pass General Public Medical Shuttle Demand Response University of Iowa Hospital, Iowa City IA TuesThur 6:00am-4:30pm $20 round trip (Originating in Lee Co) VA Hospital, Iowa City IA Medical Shuttle Demand Response University of Iowa Hospital, Iowa City IA TuesThur 6:00-8:30am2:45-5:00pm $25 round trip (Originating in Des Moines Co; also covers Henry and Louisa) VA Hospital, Iowa City IA SEIBUS will have up to 13 vehicles running at a time during the week, excluding brokered buses. Including brokered vehicles, The SEIBUS fleet has up to 17 vehicles running per day. The SEIBUS fleet will travel approximately 5,100 miles per week and run approximately 300 hours. These numbers do not include SEIBUS vehicles or SEIBUS affiliated vehicles that are brokered out and operated by another agency. The majority of SEIBUS operations originate in Burlington. Thirteen buses originate from Burlington, five from Mt Pleasant, two from Keokuk, four from Ft Madison and one from Wapello. CURRENT FLEET INFORMATION SEIBUS currently directly operates XXX vehicles, with XXX operated by other agencies. Three vehicles are owned and operated by other agencies under the auspices of SEIBUS. The SEIBUS fleet is experienced, with the average bus being eight years old. Please see the next page for fleet information. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 5 -

90 REGION 16 RTA 2007 FLEET INFORMATION FLEET PROPERTY MILES DATE OF EQUIP VEHICLE SEAT PROPERTY ACQUIST ACQUIST ID DESCRIPTION MILES TYPE SIZE CAP ID # DATE COST FORD SUPREME 147, LD FDKE37M9NHB $35, FORD ELDORADO 199, LD FDXE37MXPHA $1, FORD ELDORADO 150, LD FDKE37M1PHA $1, FORD SUPREME 109, LD FDLE40G9THB $40, FORD SUPREME 141, LD FDLE40G0THB $40, CHEVY ELDORADO 206, LD GBKH37N3T $43, DODGE RAM Van 102 2B7KB31Z1TK $ DODGE RAM Van 102 2B7KB31Z2TK $ DODGE RAM Van 102 2B7KB31Z3TK $ DODGE RAM Van 102 2B7KB31Z7TK $ DODGE RAM Van 102 2B7KB31Z6TK $ FORD SUPREME LD 212 1FDLE40F9THA $ 1, FORD SUPREME 176, LD FDLE40S5VHB $44, FORD SUPREME 127, LD FDLE40S9VHB $44, FORD SUPREME 117, LD FDXE4057XHA $44, FORD SUPREME - TOTALED 119, LD FDXE45SX1HB $50, FORD APOLLO VAN 134, CV VAN 61 1FTJ5344H4NHB $ FORD APOLLO VAN 142, CV VAN 10 1FTJ534HXPHA $ FORD APOLLO VAN 137, CV VAN 61 1FTJS34HORHA $ O DODGE RAM 3500 VAN 102, SV VAN 15 2B5WB35Z91K $0.00 O FORD SUPREME LD FDXE45P15HB $52, O FORD SUPREME LD FDXE45P35HB $52, O FORD SUPREME LD FDWE35P96DB $47, O FORD SUPREME LD FDWE35P06DB $47, O FORD SUPREME LD FDWE35P76DB $49,254.00

91 CURRENT FACILITY NEEDS SEIBUS has identified the need for a central facility for several reasons, but the main reason is to: Save public money by maintaining and storing buses better in a dedicated transit facility. There is no adequate indoor space to house primary and reserve vehicles With the exception of barn storage, SEIBUS has no indoor storage for its main fleet. This lack of indoor storage has a negative effect on the service life of the buses. Indoor storage space means the ability to perform more complete pre-route checks; protection from the elements; ability to perform simple preventative maintenance procedures; and the ability to protect from vandalism and damage. Of course, there are not any current plans to house every vehicle in an indoor facility. The first step is to provide space for the majority of the fleet, then plan for additional storage opportunities. There is no space to wash vehicles Washing vehicles is another important factor in preventative maintenance. Washing prevents rust and premature deterioration of outer and underbody components. Washing also projects a desirable image for SEIBUS and public transit in Iowa; in general, people will ride clean buses more than dirty ones. Sufficient maintenance space is unavailable Using private contractors for maintenance is cost ineffective over an extended period of time SEIBUS currently contracts out all maintenance performed on its vehicles. Market labor rates for servicing buses and vans is currently $65hour and up. SEIBUS believes it will save money over the long run and perform more timely service if it serviced buses primarily in-house. Labor currently makes up approximately 41% of maintenance costs in FY2007. Dispatch Space The current SEIBUS dispatch area covers approximately 36 sq ft. There is room for one desk and limited storage space. Organization aids, space for additional dispatchers if needed and file space is severely lacking. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 6 -

92 Projected Space Requirements SEIBUS projects to maintain its level of directly operated vehicles at 14 or below over the next five years and increase its number of brokered vehicles. The facility will be in or around Burlington, as it is a central locale for the SEIRPC offices and SEIBUS operations. It is expected that up to 20 buses may be stored at any given time in the facility in the future. However, due to the relatively high cost of storage space, the capacity to store 20 vehicles will be planned in the future. The current capacity for storage space will be approximately 12 vehicles with the large storage space, maintenance area and wash area. A light duty bus with a 176 wheelbase takes up approximately 440 sq ft, including clear space areas and parking arrangements. Considering 10 buses in the large storage area, approximately 4400 sq ft will be needed for bus storage. Bus Storage Requirements No. of buses Sq Ft per bus Total Sq Ft Maintenance will require two maintenance bays for repair of fleet vehicles. The maintenance bays should be approximately 1600 sq ft each, for a total of 3200sq ft. This will provide for two buses in each bay at a time, or a large bus, for a total of up to four buses or potentially slightly more vans. The maintenance area will also need common parts and tool and equipment storage. It is estimated this space would be 500 sq ft. The common parts storage could utilize a loft-type arrangement where floor space wouldn t be occupied, so this storage space could be calculated out of the total floor space if design warrants it. A wash bay would also ideally be included in the maintenance area. The wash bay would be approximately the same size as the maintenance bays, 1600 sq ft, to allow for two buses at a time, or larger buses and working around the vehicles. Additional space is used for a maintenance office. Maintenance Space Needs Maintenance Bays Parts Storage Maintenance Office Wash Bay Total Area sq ft 150 sq ft 1500 sq ft 5150 sq ft Other spaces needed include a driver locker roomchanging area, service office and restrooms. Other Space Needs Driver Locker Room Restrooms Training Room Kitchen Total 350 sq ft 450 sq ft 700 sq ft 200 sq ft 1900 sq ft Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 7 -

93 Dispatch and Administration needs are below: DispatchAdmin Needs Dispatch Area FileStorage OtherMechanical Total Sq Ft 400 sq ft 200 sq ft 150 sq ft 750 Total anticipated space needs total just over 12,000 Sq Ft. This equates to approximately 0.30 acres of land. Total Space Needs Bus Storage Maintenance DispatchAdmin Total Sq Ft 4400 sq ft 5150 sq ft 2650 sq ft 12,200 NOTE: The projected space requirements reflect an ideal situation where all space needs could be met under one roof. Various alternatives will be analyzed and evaluated in following sections. Space needs and projected costs may change after this study is completed. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 8 -

94 ALTERNATIVES 1. Build new facility 2. Build facility and acquire other storage 3. Acquire property suitable to convert to facility 4. Do nothing (No build alternative) RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing four alternatives, Option 1: Build new facility seems to be the most feasible for several reasons. First, the benefits of indoor storage cannot be discounted for lengthening bus service life and producing long term cost savings. This assertion takes Option 4: Do nothing out of the equation because SEIBUS does want to make better public investments into their transit system, and will seek to do so with public resources. Second, any potential facility must be near the SEIRPC offices should they move out of the Memorial Auditorium, for the sake of continuity and administration. Third, the SEIRPC Facilities Committee main location criterion is that any new SEIBUS facility cannot take land off of the public tax rolls. This starts to limit Options 2 and 3 because they involve finding other suitable buildings which may not be available near potential future SEIRPC office sites or may be current private uses that are being taxed. Fourth, new construction will allow for specific designs to be met more efficiently than with an existing building. Fifth, there are simply more sites that are compatible with new construction that also coincide with potential future SEIRPC office sites and keeping land tax-productive. FUNDING SOURCES: General Funding Sources State Federal Local Match Potential Available GrantLoan Amoco Loan x 0 $100,000 - $150,000 Loan (0% INT) Federal Earmark x 20% $500,000 - $1,000,000 Grant FTA 5309 x 20% $200,000 - $500,000 Grant Iowa RIIF x 20% $2,200,000 Grant Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study - 9 -

95 Typical Funding Scenario Cost Estimate $1,159,000 Iowa RIIF $850,000 Amoco Loan $250,000 Local cash $59,000 DESCRIPTION OF FUNDING SOURCES Amoco Loan: A state-funded revolving loan pool where money is loaned interest-free as local match for capital or vertical infrastructure projects. Payment usually happens over a three to five year period. The funding comes from overcharge fees from Amoco to the State of Iowa. Rebuilt Iowa s Infrastructure Fund (Iowa RIIF): Established by the Iowa Legislature in 1995, it is designed to fund vertical infrastructure projects in Iowa. In 2006, the Legislature appropriated $4.4 million to be used towards transit vertical infrastructure projects in Iowa over the course of state fiscal years 2007 and Each year $2.2 million is available for vertical infrastructure projects. The funding will be allocated through a grant process administered through the Iowa DOT Office of Public Transit. Federal Earmark: Only earmarks through annual appropriations bills will be available for a transit facility. Usually congressmen and senators request proposals for earmarks in spring and appropriations discussions begin around the same time with a final bill passing early the next year. Federal Transit Administration 5309 Funding: This funding source is allocated to the State of Iowa through a formula process and distributed by the Iowa DOT Office of Public Transit. The funding is used for capital projects, both rollingstock and vertical infrastructure. It is unknown how much 5309 funding Iowa DOT will allocate towards vertical infrastructure projects in the future. Local Cash: Locally-derived funding can originate from a variety of sources. Most often utilized as local match to other state and federal grants, this funding can come from public or private sources. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

96 Analysis of Alternatives 1. Build new facility Assumptions: Building Cost: $95sq ft Building Size: 12,200Sq Ft Building would be all new construction The site is vacant and would not require extensive demolitioncleanup Building design is one-story, simple construction Estimated Cost: $1,159,000 (12,200 sq ft * $95sq ft) Facility Cost: The cost of the facility will be approximately $616,000. It is anticipated that 80% of the funding will come from state and federal sources, leaving 20%, or $123,200 to be paid through local sources. Funding Sources Local FederalState Total $ 231,800 $ 927,200 $ 1,159,000 Of the $231,800 of local funding, it is anticipated that at least $100,000 would come from the Amoco Loan program available through the Iowa DOT. It is very likely that the full local match at this cost estimate could come from Iowa DOT. This is a no-interest loan program that serves as a local match provider for capital and vertical infrastructure projects alike. This leaves very little or nothing at all to be paid back through interest-generating sources, like private bank loans. Amoco Loan Repayment Annual Cost: $42,760.00year (5 years) Operating Cost: Operating cost to the facility will include both utilities and personnel costs. SEIBUS currently spends approximately 41% of its total maintenance costs on labor. In FY2006, SEIBUS will spend approximately $20,000 on labor costs in maintaining its fleet of buses. However, employing a full-time mechanic will include more direct expense to SEIBUS. The savings to be generated will come through reduced major repair expense and extended life of vehicles. Savings will also be realized in having a maintenance Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

97 coordinator arrange bus maintenance and repairs currently a responsibility of the Transit Director. There is also a potential option to assist Burlington Urban Service in their maintenance needs. The proposed mechanic may be part-time or other arrangement to save upfront costs. Operating CostFirst Year Personnel Utilities Insurance Loan Repayment Total $ 33,000 $ 8,400 $ 4,800 $ 24,640 $ 70,840 Advantages Constructing a new building has several advantages over remodeling or not having any facility. Economy of scale when building Build to suit needs Choice of design life Ideal if land is free A facility will be built to maintain and store buses to increase service life Disadvantages Total cost is more than current situation w no facility Potential higher overall price for building versus remodeling OVERALL ANALYSIS: Building a facility may be more expensive than remodeling or not doing anything at all. But the overarching fact that a facility could be built for a cost to the system of $231,800 is too large of an advantage to not strongly consider building new. There are also many advantages to controlling the design and construction: building to suit needs, plan for future reuses, control costs to budget. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

98 2. Build new facility and acquire other storage This alternative assumes building a smaller facility primarily for maintenance and acquiring other bus storage to reduce costs of new construction. Assumptions: Building Cost: $95sq ft Building Size: 3300 Sq Ft Building would be all new construction The site is vacant and would not require extensive demolitioncleanup Building design is one-story, simple construction Other storage is readily available and conforms to size needs Estimated Cost: $313,500 (3300 sq ft * $95sq ft) Facility Cost: The estimated cost of this facility is $313,500 with 80 percent coming from state or federal sources. Funding Sources Local FederalState Total $ 62,600 $ 250,400 $ 313,000 Of the $62,600 of local funding, it is anticipated that most or all of it would come from the Amoco Loan program available through the Iowa DOT. This is a no-interest loan program that serves as a local match provider for capital and vertical infrastructure projects alike. This leaves very little or nothing at all to be paid back through interest-generating sources, like private bank loans. The actual cost to the system for the facility construction is estimated at $62, Amoco Loan Repayment Annual Cost: $12,520.00year (5 years) Operating Cost: Operating cost to the facility will include utilities, rent for additional storage and personnel costs. SEIBUS currently spends approximately 67% of its total maintenance costs on labor. In FY2006, SEIBUS will spend approximately $20,000 on labor costs in maintaining its fleet of buses. However, employing a full-time mechanic will include more direct expense to SEIBUS. The savings to be generated will come through reduced major repair expense and extended life of vehicles. Savings will also be realized in having a maintenance Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

99 coordinator arrange bus maintenance and repairs currently a responsibility of the Transit Director. There is also a potential option to assist Burlington Urban Service in their maintenance needs. Operating CostFirst Year Personnel Utilities Insurance Loan Repayment Storage Fac Rent Total $ 33,000 $ 3,708 $ 4,800 $ 10,560 $ 8,400 $ 60,468 Advantages Constructing a new building has several advantages over remodeling or not having any facility. Economy of scale when building Build to suit needs Choice of design life Ideal if land is free A facility will be built to maintain and store buses to increase service life Disadvantages Total cost is more than current situation w no facility Potential higher overall price for building versus remodeling Additional cost and hassle of having a separate storage facility Is an affordable storage facility available? OVERALL ANALYSIS: Many of the advantages are the same as Option 1; however with the additional cost and hassle of storing buses away from the main facility, the convenience factor is very low. The practicality of a joint storagemaintenance facility is high. The smaller facility is cheaper, but in terms of efficiency and time savings both in operation and in developing the facility Option 2 falls short of Option 1. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

100 3. Acquire Property Suitable to Convert to a Facility This alternative assumes that an existing property would be acquired and remodeled to fit facility needs. Assumptions: Building Cost: $30sq ft Building Size: 7700 Sq Ft Building would be readily remodeled The site is suitable for maintenancestorage use Estimated Cost: $231,000 (7700 sq ft * $30sq ft) Facility Cost: The estimated cost of this facility is $231,000 with 80 percent coming from state or federal sources. Funding Sources Local FederalState Total $ 52,800 $ 211,200 $ 264,000 Of the $46,200 of local funding, it is anticipated that most or all of it would come from the Amoco Loan program available through the Iowa DOT. This is a no-interest loan program that serves as a local match provider for capital and vertical infrastructure projects alike. This leaves very little or nothing at all to be paid back through interest-generating sources, like private bank loans. The actual cost to the system for the facility construction is estimated at $46, Amoco Loan Repayment Annual Cost: $9,240.00year (5 years) Operating Cost: Operating cost to the facility will include utilities, rent for additional storage and personnel costs. SEIBUS currently spends approximately 67% of its total maintenance costs on labor. In FY2006, SEIBUS will spend approximately $20,000 on labor costs in maintaining its fleet of buses. However, employing a full-time mechanic will include more direct expense to SEIBUS. The savings to be generated will come through reduced major repair expense and extended life of vehicles. Savings will also be realized in having a maintenance coordinator arrange bus maintenance and repairs currently a responsibility of the Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

101 Transit Director. There is also a potential option to assist Burlington Urban Service in their maintenance needs. Operating CostFirst Year Personnel Utilities Insurance Loan Repayment Storage Fac Rent Total $ 33,000 $ 3,708 $ 4,800 $ 10,560 $ 8,400 $ 60,468 Advantages Remodeling a new building has a couple advantages over building new or not having any facility. Total cost may be much lower Reusing an available building (advantage goes to community) Possibility of quick turnaround time between purchase and remodel Disadvantages Chances of finding suitable building for a remodeled transit facility near suitable SEIRPC office site are slim Remodeled building may not have adequate design life for SEIRPC Too many unknowns to plan accordingly OVERALL ANALYSIS: Remodeling a building for a transit facility is an attractive option both for cost and reuse reasons. However, the availability of such buildings appears to be severely limited. This option is extremely constrained by the need to have the facility be in close proximity to the SEIRPC offices. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

102 4. No Build Alternative This alternative assumes that operations will continue as they have over the past two years, with no maintenance and indoor storage facility. Assumptions: Continue operations as usual: contract out all maintenance and store vehicles outside Estimated Cost: It is estimated that 67% of all maintenance costs will be labor It is unknown how much outdoor storage will cost the system in future repairs. $35,000 has been budgeted for maintenance in FY2007 Advantages Doing business as usual does have some advantages: Total cost will be much lower No time spent acquiring state and federal dollars for a facility Added time and expense of maintaining a building is saved Disadvantages Buses may not be maintained to a high level due to $65hour labor costs Outdoor storage causes its own problems in day to day operation and in long term maintenance Quality control of maintenance is highly difficult with private contractors OVERALL ANALYSIS: The No-Build alternative is a feasible option. The SEIRPC Board of Directors must weigh the benefits of a presently lower overall cost operating without a facility with future savings of a better preventative maintenance program and indoor storage. In many instances, it makes more sense for an agency to pay itself for certain activities, in this case maintenance, than to pay an effectively higher overall rate to contract out the services. The benefits of indoor storage also cannot be discounted. Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

103 LOCATION ANALYSIS SEIRPC Facilities Committee The SEIRPC Facilities Committee has been meeting since May of 2006 to discuss potential locations for a new SEIRPC office and transit facility. Their role is to meet independently of the full SEIRPC Board of Directors and make recommendations to the Board of Directors on facility issues, such as location, design, cost, funding sources and potential partnerships. This section will focus specifically on the facilities committee s criteria for a potential site, sites that were evaluated and what the final sites are. The committee is actually still meeting as of December, 2006 to determine what partnerships are available to SEIRPC and SEIBUS to make a facility investment as beneficial as possible to the region. Current Status The facilities committee is in the final stages of making arrangement for a SEIBUSSEIRPC facility on one of two sites: City lots across from the Burlington Depot in Burlington and land at Southeastern Community College in West Burlington. The facility design will fit on both sites; final arrangements will be made in the next 1-2 months. Potential Sites There have been three potential sites to be considered for the SEIBUS transit facility and SEIRPC offices: The U.S. Army Reserve building, Hwy 79, Middletown, IA Southeastern Community College, Agency St, West Burlington The Burlington railroad depot and associated city-owned vacant lots across the street, Main St, Burlington Please see map on following page for site locations. Site Criteria The three main site criteria for the facilities committee are: SEIRPC and SEIBUS shall not take land off of public tax rolls that are currently being taxed; The amount to pay for land, buildings and equipment shall be financially feasible for SEIRPC and SEIBUS; The new facility should remain in a location that is regionally advantageous to SEIRPC, SEIBUS and the southeast Iowa region Region 16 Transit BuildingFacility Feasibility Study

104 Minnesota South Dakota Wisconsin Iowa Nebraska Illinois Missouri ^_ Middletown West Burlington ^_ Burlington ^_ Legend ^_ ^_ ^_ City Boundaries Amtrak Depot Site Army Reserve Building Site Southeastern Community College Site 1 inch equals 624,203.5 feet 0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet