Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - REGIONAL INTERAGENCY TRANSFER (2)Agenda Item: 12 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Q) AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR i, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1 j=� DATE: October 27, 2015 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF REGIONAL INTERAGENCY TRANSFER (IAT) POLICY AND ADOPTION OF THE TITLE VI EQUITY ANALYSIS (TRANSIT) DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services PRESENTER: Adrian Aguilar RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Adopt the proposed change to the Policy on the use of Interagency Transfers as described in Attachment A. 2. Adopt the Title VI Equity Analysis and findings of the proposed transfer policy changes conducted by LA Metro (Metro) on behalf of the Los Angeles County Regional Transit Operators in Attachment B. BACKGROUND The Transit Access Pass (TAP) is an integrated, regional fare collection system that allows for seamless bus -and -rail transportation throughout the Los Angeles region. The City of Santa Clarita was an early adopter of the TAP system and implemented the system in 2007. In May 2015, the last remaining non -TAP transit operators adopted the regional fare system, bringing the total number of transit agencies using this technology to 24 providers. The region is now poised to fully realize the seamless travel across the County that was envisioned when the TAP program was first launched, improving customer convenience and boarding times. Prior to the extensive use of the TAP system, regional transit providers used a complex transfer system to encourage connectivity between services. The system, which was dependent on the distribution of paper transfers, often resulted in confusion for patrons and lost revenue for the participating agencies. With the recent expansion of the TAP system, it is now feasible to eliminate the use of paper transfers and the TAP system to electronically issue transfers to passengers. Page 1 Packet Pg. 146 Analvsis of the Proposed Changes There are three significant changes proposed to the regional Interagency Transfer policy (IAT). 1. Transfers from a regional operator to Santa Clarita would only be accepted when issued on a TAP Card. Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) does not issue paper transfers; they are only issued onto TAP cards. SCT does, however, accept paper transfers issued from another regional operator. If adopted, the new IAT policy would require all agencies to eliminate the use of paper transfers and issue all transfers on a TAP card only. 2. Transfer fare charges will be deducted from the TAP card upon the second boarding. The customer will no longer be required to purchase a transfer on the first boarding. Instead, the customer would simply TAP their card for both boardings. A base fare would be deducted on the first vehicle, and a transfer fee would be deducted when the passenger "TAPS" on the second vehicle. 3. The transfer window would be extended to two and a half hours from the current two-hour window. The extension of the transfer window is warranted, due to increasing traffic congestion and the distance of some regional bus routes, particularly those from the Antelope Valley. Benefits of the New Policv The benefits of the proposed policy change include the following: Reduced Boarding Time - Under the new policy, the customer would not need to communicate with the operator to purchase a regional interagency transfer. The transfer would happen automatically upon making the transfer boarding, ensuring the customer receives the transfer to which they are entitled, thereby speeding up boarding times for all customers. Eliminating Necessity to Carry Exact Change - Restricting IATs to TAP cards only would eliminate the customer's need to carry exact change in order to purchase a transfer. Instead, riders would add cash to their TAP card. TAP cards can be registered for balance protection, allowing the TAP card balance to be restored should the card be lost or stolen. In addition to eliminating the need for exact change, the customer would be guaranteed transfers if he/she has paid a base fare within the transfer window. This ensures the customer only pays for the transfer they need. Promoting the Use of TAP - Restricting IATs to TAP cards promotes the use of TAP cards, which will reduce cash collection expenses, costly farebox maintenance, and improve accounting and reporting. Fraud Reduction - Transit agencies such as LA Metro, provide customers IATs in the form of a paper transfer slips. This presents an opportunity for fraud, as paper transfers are relatively easy to resell, reproduce, or receive without paying the base fare. Restricting the use of IATs to TAP cards only links the original fare and the transfer to the same fare media, and the system would validate base fare payment before authorizing the transfer. In addition, restricting IATs to TAP Page 2 Packet Pg. 147 cards would eliminate the monetary incentive to resell the transfers, since the TAP card itself costs $2. Title VI Analvsis As the largest TAP -enabled operator in Los Angeles County (County), Metro, on behalf of the region, took the lead on preparing the federally required Title VI analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if the elimination of the paper interagency transfers, and requiring the passenger to pay the transfer fee on the second boarding instead of when they board the first vehicle, would have a disproportional impact on minorities and low-income users. As part of the Title VI analysis (Attachment B), which was approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the County's population was divided into eight groups of riders defined by their proximity to a TAP sales location (within 1/4 mile walking distance), their ability to load their TAP card on a transit vehicle, and whether they have a TAP card already in their possession. The analysis divided the county -wide service population into eight groups and determined which of any of these identified groups would be disparately impacted. The analysis found that one group of the eight to be disparately impacted by the proposal is a group of 800,000 people who are constituents of Antelope Valley, Foothill Transit, Gardena, Montebello, and Torrance that do not have a TAP card and are not within walking distance of a place to obtain one. Due to the number of outlets available within the Santa Clarita Valley and Santa Clarita Transit's extensive use and early adoption of the TAP fare system, the City of Santa Clarita Transit was not part of this disparately impacted group. All TAP member agencies are working on numerous strategies and tactics to ensure successful customer communications on the new transfer policy, including the distribution of one million TAP cards in advance of policy implementation. Metro staff are also working to increase the number of TAP sales locations and plans to sell TAP products at County libraries and regional grocery store chains. City staff will continue to work with Metro and partner agencies to promote the use of TAP and expand the number of TAP sales outlets in the region. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Do not approve the proposed changes to the City's transfer policy, and do not adopt the Title VI analysis conducted by Metro on behalf of the Los Angeles County regional operators. If the Council chooses not to approve the proposed changes or adopt the Title VI analysis, Santa Clarita Transit would no longer be part of the regional Interagency Transfer program. Santa Clarita Transit customers would be required to pay the full base fare and would no longer be entitled to free or discounted fares when connecting to regional transit providers such as Metro, AVTA, LADOT, or Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus. 2. Other action as determined by City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The adoption of this policy will have no significant impact on the budget or fare revenue. The transfer fee is simply going to be collected on the return leg instead of the initial leg of the trip. Page 3 Packet Pg. 148 ATTACHMENTS Attachments A and B List of 26 Agencies on TAP Page 4 Packet Pg. 149 UVO N3dSNVNI A:DN30VN31N1 -1`dNO103N d0 -1` AONdd`d: MO 8 Pue d s;uauaWE11V :;uauiyW,11V c N r � a a� ATTACHMENTA L Proposed Changes to the Policy on the Use of Inter -Agency Transfers In an effort to promote seamless travel for the public, and in response to state TDA law, included and eligible municipal operators and the LACTMA establish the following revised interagency transfer policy: - - -�w - - WS I A rider shall receive one transfer between bus systems or Metro Rail lines operated by different agencies within two and one-half hours of payment of a base fare. If the person is transferring to express or premium service, the operator will follow that system's policy about charging an additional fare for the express/premium service. . nasi. w sewiee, the aGGepting OpeFatOF Will follow that system's pe iray aboUt GhaFging aR C - Transfers shall be made available to customers as follows: TAP cardholders shall automatically receive one transfer, if applicable, upon boarding their second bus or train within two and one-half hours. Fares for the TAP interagency transfer are determined by the accepting transit system. (1` I) N3dSNVN1 A0N30VN31N1 -11`dN0103H d0 -1` A0Ndd`d : I,8£0 8 PUE V s;uauay3e11V :1u8WLlW'11V N r � a a� ATTACHMENT B a Title VI Evaluation Replacement of Existing Interagency Transfers With TAP -Based Method This is a Title VI evaluation of the replacement of current methods of providing Interagency Transfers (IATs) with a TAP -based method. The affected operators are those Los Angeles County fixed route service providers that receive some form of formula operating subsidy from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)(Table 1). Table 1 Los Angeles County Formula Funded Fixed Route Operators Antelope Valley Gardena Norwalk Beach Cities Transit Long Beach Santa Clarita Culver City Los Angeles DOT Santa Monica Foothill Transit Metro Torrance Montebello For this evaluation the Universe of potentially impacted persons is all persons within one-quarter mile of any bus stop served by one or more of the above operators, and/or within one-half mile of any rail station. Ethnic data for this population is obtained from the 2010 US Census, and Household Income data for this population is obtained from the 2006-2010 American Consumer Survey (ACS). Because the Census data is provided at the block group level, and the ACS data is at the tract level the size of the impacted population is slightly greater for the ACS data (block groups that are more than one-quarter mile from a bus stop would be excluded from the Census data, but could be included in the ACS data if the tract containing such block groups was within that one-quarter mile of a bus stop). For reference purposes this evaluation will refer to the Ethnic population as the Title VI data, and the Household Income population will be referred to as the Environmental Justice data. The Title VI population consists of 9,648,798 persons of whom 6,826,725 are minorities (70.8%). The Environmental Justice population consists of 9,742,481 persons of whom 1,531,488 are living in households below the federally defined Poverty income levels (15.7%). Evaluation Methodology The Universe of potentially impacted persons has been defined as essentially all persons who can walk to fixed route transit. Under current methods any passenger TAP -Based Interagency Transfers May 2015 Title VI Evaluation — Page 1 UVI) N3dSNVNI A0N30VN31N1 -11`dN0103H d0 -1` A0Ndd`d: 1,8£0 8 PUE V s;uaU Ll3E11V :1uauiyoe; V N N r � a a� ATTACHMENT B a desiring an IAT may purchase it at the time that they board a bus, or at a rail station at the time that they purchase their rail ticket. In order to be unaffected by the introduction of TAP -based IAT's a passenger must still be within walking distance of the means to purchase the IAT before taking their transit ride. Otherwise, a person would be adversely affected by the new method. The mechanics of the proposed IAT process require that the passenger have a TAP card with a cash purse holding sufficient value to purchase an IAT. Such a rider would pay their initial fare by whatever means they normally use (either a cash deduction from the TAP card purse, or the use of whatever pass is stored on the TAP card). When the transfer boarding occurs, the cost of the transfer would be debited from the TAP card purse. The relevant factors for this evaluation are 1) does the rider have a TAP card, or not, and 2) can the rider add value to that TAP card to ensure the ability to pay for the trip. The ability to add value to a TAP card adds an additional level of complexity to this evaluation — some of the fixed route operators have the ability to add value to a TAP card on board a bus and some do not have this capability. In the latter instance, whether a rider remains unaffected by the proposed method will depend on whether or not they are within walking distance of an alternative means of adding value to the TAP card. The alternatives consist of rail and Orange Line stations which have TVM's capable of issuing and upgrading TAP cards, or customer service outlets which can sell and/or upgrade TAP cards (there are several hundred of these).The possible combinations of these factors and nature of rider impacts are shown in Table 2. This evaluation assumes that having to purchase a TAP card. is inconsequential because the $142 cost of the card can be amortized over its multiple year validity. Therefore, the No TAP Card riders whose only potential adverse impact would be the need to buy a TAP card are considered to be Not Impacted as long as they are otherwise able to walk to a location where they can add value to the card. As can be seen from Table 2 there are three scenarios that result in an adverse impact for riders so situated: 1. The rider has No TAP Card and adding value to the TAP purse on the bus has no value because they are not within walking distance of a location where they could obtain the TAP card itself; 2. The rider has a TAP Card but cannot add value to it anywhere; and 3. The rider has No Tap Card and cannot add value to it or buy one. TAP -Based Interagency Transfers May 2015 Title VI Evaluation — Page 2 (1` I) N3dSNVNI A0N30VN31N1 -1`dN0I03N d0 -1` A0Ndd`d: �8£O 8 PUE V s;uauay3e11V :1u8W4W'11V M q N r � a a� cc ATTACHMENT B a Table 2 Rider Impact Categorizations TAP Card Can Add Value No Impact Can Walk to Outlet Can Add Value No Impact Cannot Walk to Outlet Cannot Add Value No Impact Can Walk to Outlet Cannot Add Value Adverse Impact Cannot Walk to Outlet Results of Evaluation No TAP Card No Impact Adverse Impact No Impact Adverse Impact The next step in this evaluation was to determine the number of persons associated with each Impact Category, and for the potential Adverse Impact categories, whether or not the resulting impacts were Disparate (disproportionately affecting minorities) or imposed a Disproportionate Burden (disproportionately impacted persons in Poverty). Metro has defined a Disparate Impact as an adverse impact affecting a group having an absolute 5% greater minority share than the overall population (Universe) (in this instance, 70.8% + 5% = 75.8% or greater) or a 20% greater share (70.8% x 1.20 = 85.0%). This evaluation uses the lesser threshold of 75.8%. A Disproportionate Burden has been defined as an adverse impact affecting a group having an absolute 5% greater Poverty share (15.7% + 5% = 20.7%), or a 20% greater Poverty share than the overall population (in this instance, greater than 15.7% x 1.20 = 18.8% or greater). This evaluation uses the lesser share of 18.8%. The first adversely impacted group consists of those riders who do not have a TAP card, but could add value to it if they did. This is the non -TAP card portion of the second group in Table 3. The minority share of this group (75.9%) exceeds the Disparate Impact threshold (75.8%) so this group is Disparately Impacted. The Poverty share (14.7% is less than the threshold for Disproportionate Burden (18.8%) so there is no Environmental Justice consequence for this group. TAP -Based Interagency Transfers May 2015 Title VI Evaluation — Page 3 q N r UVO N3dSNVNI A:DN30VM31N1 -lVNOIJ3N d0 -lVAO 1dd`d: MO 8 pue d SlU8W4MlV :lU8W4W'llV a a .Q 12 4 t G p Q G a E � P m M= � p, w 2 G t% cz �a =w ti tv 0 Z A m e0 LL y LI w� r LO N C6 .1i L6 Ln O N f0 pa A o ,:03en c oa o re 'r, n t m13) r L .d co W r— ❑i C f+°'i sh GS ti 1{ ` M hw6 ti ti y Lo b co h cr bo a Cr M LO 00 N N 47J® co M co d a c ;n ti tv 0 Z A m e0 LL y LI w� r LO N C6 .1i L6 Ln O N f0 pa UVO N3dSNVN1 A0N30VN31N1 -1`dNOI03N dO -1` AONdd`d: 1,8£0 8 pue V s1u8uay3e11V :1uauay:eRV to q N r � a a� ATTACHMENT B a The remaining two adversely impacted groups comprise the totality of the fourth category in Table 3 (whether or not they have a TAP card, they have no way to add value to it). Both the minority share (70.3% compared with 75.8%) and the Poverty share (16.1 % compared with 18.8%) are less than the thresholds for Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden, respectively, so there are no Title VI or Environmental Justice consequences for these groups. Findings The group of riders having no TAP card, and not within walking distance of a place to obtain one (though they could add value to it if they had one) was found to be Disparately Impacted by the proposed TAP -based IAT. The most recently processed Customer Satisfaction Survey indicates that about 72% of Metro riders have a TAP card (probably a higher percentage now as this data is over a year old). This yields a group of approximately 800,000 people who are constituents of Antelope Valley, Foothill Transit, Gardena, Montebello, and Torrance (those affording the opportunity to add value to the TAP purse at the trip origin). This group constitutes about 8.3% of all persons within walking distance of fixed route transit. The proposed TAP -based IAT should be pursued given that more than 91 % of the population would not be Disparately Impacted nor Disproportionately Burdened by the program. Customer convenience for those having to transfer would be improved with faster boarding times, and not having to carry added cash for transfer charges. It is clearly in Metro's interest to pursue improved multi -operator coordination and the provision of seamless fare mechanisms for riders which the proposed program would accomplish. Given the significant investment in TAP, there is no other cost-effective mechanism for providing a consistent multi -operator transfer program without printed fare media than the proposed TAP program. TAP -Based Interagency Transfers May 2015 Title VI Evaluation — Page 5 24 transit systems, just a TAP away. Transit systems on TAP embarrass V.Roy Tali LA Coomy Performing Proof ANTAt of margin Works god", Peak Transit LADOT Transit U.naf LO' As Peaks Arm City of Morgany Park art,, Saint Bus I� a"reg"Al 61, LIM, Campine RIallalik, Ni Toms system Foil Trait Plans", Transit Cglardi 811[rll saki rotor, gross HIM119,11 Park Big Bliss guy Transit U,I,m,td Torrinue Transit