Regional Transit Institutional Analysis

1
Regional Transit Institutional Analysis

• Peer Regions Atlanta Region Issues
• February 4, 2005

2
Agenda

• Progress to Date (1100-1115)
• Peer Region Comparison (1115-1150)
• Atlanta Regional Context (1150-1205)
• Issue Identification (1205-1245)
• Peer Region Workshop (1245-100)

3
Peer Region Comparison
4
Seven Peer Regions

• Chicago added due to stakeholder interest
• Details in hand-out table
• Washington, DC
• San Francisco, CA
• Detroit, MI
• Chicago, IL
• Seattle, WA
• San Diego, CA
• Minneapolis, MN

5
Washington, DC

• Regional rail and bus operator (WMATA) overlaid
  on local jurisdictions operations
• Agreed definitions of regional and local service
• Largest local operation (DC) is operated by WMATA
  under contract
• No major dedicated funding source agency
  receives annual appropriations from each
  jurisdiction. Funding options are currently under
  review.

6
Detroit, MI

• Suburban authority (SMART) with dedicated
  property tax requiring 5-year renewal by
  municipality
• Detroit Area Regional Transit Authority (DARTA)
  being formed to allocate state and federal
  transit funds, and to coordinate planning
  encountering legislative litigation hurdles

7
San Francisco, CA

• MTC umbrella over 20 county agencies and BART
  allocates Federal funds based on coordinated plan
  provides customer information and fare revenue
  clearinghouse
• Leading national model of strong MPO coordinating
  major operators who receive high funding per
  capita

8
Chicago, IL

• Regional agency (RTA) coordinates major city
  rapid rail and bus (CTA) regional commuter rail
  (Metra) and suburban bus system (Pace)
• Regional transit sales tax revenues allocated to
  three operators by statutory formula
• RTA requires minimum cost recovery from farebox
  for each operator
• Coordinates customer information and fares

9
Seattle, WA

• Regional overlay operator (Sound Transit) was
  created to provide high-capacity transit (express
  bus, commuter rail, LRT) in addition to
  county-provided services (Pierce, King,
  Snohomish)
• Sound Transit funded by regional sales tax,
  currently 8/10th percent county providers funded
  by a mix of sales and motor vehicle excise taxes
• Sound Transit purchases service from county
  operators with state and Federal funds

10
San Diego, CA

• Consolidated planning and construction
  responsibilities (previously held by NCTD and
  MTS) within SANDAG (formerly MPO).
• Partial credit to consolidation for extension of
  regional ½ sales tax for transportation
  (TransNet) in Nov 2004.
• Consolidating three operating boards into MTS
  major southern operator.

11
Minneapolis, MN

• Metropolitan Council formed in 1967 for
  government coordination, later became MPO, then
  merged with transit operations board, waste
  control commission, and regional parks
• Capital investments funded by property taxes
  operations funded by motor vehicle sales tax and
  state general funds

12
Atlanta Regional Context
13
County Transit Systems

• Operated under home rule powers of county
• Clayton funded with CMAQ, Cobb and Gwinnett with
  business license fees and general funds
• Cobb and Gwinnett operate local service and
  express service to Atlanta CBD.

14
MARTA

• Enabled in five counties and City of Atlanta by
  legislative Act of 1965.
• Four counties and City of Atlanta voted by
  referendum to form MARTA.
• A service plan and 1 sales tax approved by
  referendum in Atlanta, DeKalb and Fulton in 1971.
• Under current state law, the 1 tax will roll
  back to ½ in 2047. Under current contract
  between Atlanta, DeKalb and Fulton, it will roll
  back to ½ in 2032.

15
MARTA

• Comprehensive powers for all phases of transit
  planning, construction and operation
• Power to issue bonds, set fares, but does not
  have power to levy taxes nor the power of eminent
  domain
• Power to contract for service outside of the
  current tax district
• Governed by 18 member board

• Atlanta 4
• DeKalb 5
• Fulton 3

• Clayton 1
• Gwinnett 1
• State 4 (ex-officio)

16
GRTA Boundaries

• Jurisdiction is 13 counties in Atlanta region,
  but could be be statewide
• Boundaries are the contiguous counties that have
  been determined by US EPA not to have met one or
  more of the Clean Air Act standards
  (non-attainment area)
• Non-contiguous counties (including other
  metropolitan areas) in non-attainment can be
  added by act of the County Commissions

17
GRTA Governance

• 15 member board appointed by the Governor to
  5-year terms to reasonably reflect the
  characteristics of the general public within the
  jurisdiction or potential jurisdiction of the
  authority
• Additional members added when non-contiguous
  counties join

18
GRTA Powers and Sunset

• Power to execute all phases of surface public
  transportation projects, particularly to assist
  counties in such projects
• Powers to issue bonds and acquire property by
  eminent domain
• Additional planning powers
• Jurisdiction ends 20 years after non-attainment
  ends
• Currently providing express service with CMAQ
  funds

19
Issue Identification
20
Interviews

• 44 interviews planned - 37 complete to date
• Steering Committee
• Chambers of commerce
• Transit boards
• Transit executives
• Other stakeholders
• Amalgamated Transit Union
• Atlanta Business League
• Sierra Club
• Citizens for Progressive Transit

21
Perceptions from Concern to Anxiety

• Perceived to be getting worse
• Congestion and its adverse impacts
• Transit service
• Increase in uncoordinated service providers
• Reverse suburb-to-suburb commute inadequately
  served
• Funding
• Pressures on GF revenues
• Limitations on CMAQ funds
• Expiration of relief from 50 rule for MARTA

22
Perceptions from Concern to Anxiety

• Perceived problems
• Inequity of who pays the MARTA sales tax and who
  benefits
• Historical implementation of MARTA sales tax in
  only two counties and City of Atlanta difficult
  to alter will require resolve to remedy
  inequity
• MARTA labor costs are high and service quality
  low
• Perceived improvements
• Near-term business-like decisions by MARTA Board
• Implementation of MARTA smartcard will enable
  increased recovery of fare revenues

23
Role of Regional vs Local Operators

• General perception of uncoordinated proliferation
  of transit service providers
• General perception that rail and BRT require
  regional operation

• Some need for local control
• Service responsiveness
• Avoidance of big system costs

• Some need for regional streamlining and
  consolidation
• Long range planning
• Backbone of service
• Call-center
• Funding allocation

24
Regional Role

• Some believe it should be a new entity
• Some believe it could be restructured GRTA or
  MARTA
• GRTA disadvantages an instrument of the
  Governors office whereas regional governance is
  needed
• MARTA disadvantages inefficiency (real or
  perceived) and historical control by one
  subregion
• General recognition of challenges in creating a
  new entity
• Composition of governance
• Evolutionary process

25
Expanding the Funding Base

• Local bus systems facing funding constraints
• Cobb and Gwinnett pressures on the general fund
• Clayton 3-year CMAQ funds limited
• GRTA
• CMAQ and short-term road-for-transit funds used
  for express bus service
• No source other than county general funds to pick
  up the operational expenses
• Requests for increased service, but funding
  constraints
• Growth of existing system and BRT exceed current
  funding capacity
• Crisis not a universal perception agencies still
  have funds

26
General Funding Issues

• Many believe that state should play a role in
  funding
• City of Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb Counties
  believe there is a lack of equity in funding
• Some others agree Fulton and DeKalb should be
  able to use a portion of existing tax for other
  purposes
• No short-term solutions only long-term

27
General Funding Issues

• Revenue sources
• Regional transportation sales tax attracted
  greatest interest from interviewees, but total
  combined sales tax rate is perceived to be at or
  close to its limit
• Alternative sources
• State motor fuel tax not usable for transit
• Business or payroll tax uneven distribution of
  burden
• Vehicle registration fee limited yield statewide
• Other sources generally inadequate size
• Funding decisions
• By regional governing body
• By county
• A combination
• Some suggest including state-wide tax
• Some suggest combining transit with highways

28
Issue Summary

• Need for institutional reform
• Local control of service and infrastructure vs.
  coordination of funding and planning
• Small system efficiency vs. seamless service
• Need for funding reform
• Growing congestion and unmet transit needs
• Need to distribute regional burden fairly vs.
  honoring local decisions
• Range of revenue sources and mechanisms
• Substantial feeling that crisis is not yet severe
  enough to result in immediate action

29
Peer Region Workshop
30
Peer Workshop Format Mar 31-Apr 1

• Day 1 Full Day Session with Peer Region
  Representatives
• Context presentation
• Brief questions by Steering Committee
• Statements by each peer representative (7)
• Question and answer
• Final comment by each peer representative
• Comments by Steering Committee
• Day 2 Half Day Working Session

31
Peer Panel Candidates(Uninvited for comment)
32
END