Fall 2011 Status Report to Partner Agencies South Florida’s Transportation Management Organization for Today and Tomorrow Miami-Dade MPO CTAC - October 19, 2011
1. SFRTA is more than just Tri ‐ Rail 2. SFRTA is the regional recipient of federal funds for a number of local transit projects and grant programs 3. SFRTA is highly efficient: • 91 cents of each dollar for service delivery 4. SFRTA is highly privatized: • 81 % for Operating & 97% for Capital 5. SFRTA started the region’s efforts to bring passenger rail service to the FEC ‐ in 2002 6. SFRTA has leveraged local funds with both state, Federal and ARRA stimulus funds.
Provide 50 trains per day Tri ‐ Rail Service from Miami ‐ Dade to Palm Beach County 14,000 trips per day Almost 4,000 students per day Provide SFRTA owned property for the MIC Move to Hialeah Market to Save FDOT $10M in MIC construction Fees Lead Study to Double Track over Miami River Finalize Construction Plans for improved access from MetroRail to Tri ‐ Rail @ 79 th Street Station Coordinate with MDT and Marlins on potential game day service
Design improvements and expanded parking at Opa ‐ Locka Station Partner with Opa ‐ Locka to fund a new Shuttle Bus service that serves Miami ‐ Dade N. College Enable local jurisdictions to receive Federal Grants as a FTA Designated Recipient Upgrade track at Hialeah Rail Yard to accommodate new rolling stock Provide good paying jobs in Hialeah Yard Serve on MPO Technical Committees
1. FDOT announced intent to privatize SFRTA 2. FDOT has drafted legislation that reduces local control of Tri ‐ Rail, eliminates state funding and relegates SFRTA Board to a “rubber stamp” 3. FDOT’s claim that $10 million can be saved if the FEC operates Tri ‐ Rail 4. FDOT’s claim that it provides 60% of SFRTA’s funding 5. FDOT’s claim that SFRTA is not in favor of expanding passenger rail service to the FEC Corridor
FACT CHECK: TRUE FDOT Secretary Prasad announced FDOT’s Florida Transportation Vision for the 21 st Century , including plans to “…embark on a PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP along the Tri ‐ Rail corridor…” (8/5/11) RESULT: Loss of PUBLIC oversight of Tri ‐ Rail = loss of home rule and accountability PRIVATE company will answer to Tallahassee PRIVATE company will focus on profit, not passengers
SFRTA/Tri ‐ Rail was one of the first “privatized” government organizations – over 20 years ago ! SFRTA is small, efficient and responsive; not a bloated government bureaucracy Core group of SFRTA employees manages competitively procured private contractors Private contractors efficiently deliver about $50 million per year of services, plus $10s of millions worth of capital investments annually to improve the state’s rail corridor.
Operations Capital Contractor SFRTA Contractor SFRTA 3% 19% * 97% 81% * 19% SFRTA includes 9% direct service Fiscal Year 2010 delivery and 10% administrative costs
FACT CHECK: TRUE FDOT has drafted Legislation for 2012 Session Result: SFRTA Board reduced to FDOT’s “rubber stamp” Eliminates ALL state funding to SFRTA Gives FDOT control over statutorily required County funding contribution Takes away home rule Eliminates ability to expand service area
Existing Three County Three Governor 3 County Citizen Representatives Commissioners Appointees • Broward • Broward • FDOT District Secretary • Miami ‐ Dade • Miami ‐ Dade • Two County Representatives • Palm Beach • Palm Beach Proposed Legislation Removes Local Appointments Four Governor Appointed Three County Commissioners Representatives • Broward • Three Appointees ( no requirement to be local ) • Miami ‐ Dade • FDOT District Secretary • Palm Beach
Legislation deletes current statutory requirement to fund operations (i.e., dedicated state funding for Tri ‐ Rail) No State operating funding obligation means potential default on Full Funding Grant Agreement with the Federal Government
SFRTA Board becomes FDOT’s “Rubber Stamp” FDOT collects and controls County funds FDOT stated that local governments should pay more toward Tri ‐ Rail operations and state funding of operations should end
FDOT clearly intends to “privatize” Tri ‐ Rail, eliminating any meaningful role for the SFRTA Board Authority.
FACT CHECK: FALSE FDOT made that claim to the SFRTA Governing Board in August 2011 FEC provided no details on how it could cut $10M from SFRTA budget (and FDOT didn’t ask for any) FDOT claims savings could come from SFRTA overhead (based on analysis prepared by HDR) Fare increases are likely under a private operator
FDOT’s study (prepared by HDR) was based upon the National Transit Database (NTD) What’s wrong with this? NTD data general Reporting rules are vague and contradictory NTD data is not appropriate for detailed administrative overhead comparisons due to known variability in agency reporting methods
FDOT ignored HDR’s warnings that it was using NTD data inappropriately: “The biggest concern I have, and it’s a big one, is that NTD data is intended to be used for high ‐ level comparisons of cost effectiveness, productivity, etc.”
FDOT ignored HDR’s warnings FDOT was drawing the wrong conclusions: “The NTD data, by itself, does not support a conclusion that SFRTA could be operated for $42M, some $10M less than its reported expenses.” “It is not correct to “cherry ‐ pick” the lowest VO, VM, NVM and G&A costs from among SFRTA and the peer average.”
SFRTA asked AECOM and other nationally recognized transit and rail experts to review the NTD data and HDR and FDOT reports Experts concluded that FDOT’s assertion of a $10 million savings from overhead is based on flawed data, inappropriate measures and incorrect assumptions
91 Cents of Every Dollar Spent on Service Delivery Service Delivery 91% Administration Verified by AECOM
70% National Transit Database Categories 60% 50% 40% Industry LOW SFRTA 30% Industry AVE Industry HIGH 20% 10% 0% Vehicle Vehicle Non ‐ Vehicle Administration Operations Maintenance Maintenance
FACT CHECK: FALSE State Funds 27% of SFRTA’s Budget FDOT Funds 11% for Pass Through Services SFRTA provides for FDOT FDOT has never provided SFRTA beneficial use of the corridor, as they did Sun ‐ Rail, depriving it of key revenue opportunities: Advertising Land Development/Joint Development/PPP Utility Easements
SFRTA Fiscal 2012 Operating & Capital Budget South Florida Region State 29% 27% Total State 38% Federal Pass Through 33% 11% Federal Regional State State Pass Through
FACT CHECK: FALSE SFRTA started the planning efforts for the extension of Tri ‐ Rail service to the FEC, not FDOT, in 2002 SFRTA was asked to merge our study and the Miami ‐ Dade FEC Corridor study into a single study, which became the South Florida East Coast Corridor study (http://www.sfeccstudy.com/) SFRTA Board provided FDOT with a Resolution of Support for the FEC Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as recently as January 2011
SFRTA’s January 2011 Resolution included a commitment to partner with FDOT to operate the FEC service SFRTA Staff: Participated on FDOT’s Project Management Team Participated in dozens of Public Hearings Supported technical efforts Helped develop the “Integrated” Service Option included in the proposed (LPA)
SFRTA actively involved in FEC Study until January 2011 when FDOT “deactivated” SFRTA’s participation FDOT stopped most partner communication without explanation FDOT repeatedly declined invitations to provide the SFRTA Board a routine update Invitations to monthly SFECC “Progress Meetings” ended first quarter of 2011
SFRTA purchased 10 New Locomotives with additional options to support FEC expansion SFRTA purchased new Rolling Stock and exercised additional options to support FEC expansion Locomotives and Rolling Stock funded by leveraging County capital funds with State and Federal funds, including ARRA “Stimulus” Funds
Regional leadership from SFRTA that brings federal dollars to local governments and nonprofits that want to expand transit options A highly efficient and highly privatized transportation management operation A focus on local needs and transportation choice Strong support and cooperation with ALL PARTNERS to bring passenger rail service to the FEC Corridor from Miami to Jupiter
Recommend
More recommend
