UN UND S D SHUTTLE TTLE-CAT M MER ERGER ER FEA EASIB IBIL - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

GRAND FORKS/EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION UN UND S D SHUTTLE TTLE-CAT M MER ERGER ER FEA EASIB IBIL ILIT ITY CAT AND UND WORKSHOP #2 – July 18, 2019

Wor orksh shop A op Agenda genda • Introductions • Decision-making: – University Needs – City Needs • Discuss Decision-making Timeline: – Buses – Service Planning – Employees • Review of the Cost Numbers: • Pros and Cons (University Perspective) • Wrap-up

Study tudy S Steps teps

Decision ecision-Making king University N Unive sity Needs City N ity Needs • Cost: • Cost: Do Not Raise Property Tax Amount • Coverage: UND: Pay Local New Capital Match • Service Hours: 7 AM to 10 PM • Support Equitable Share of Operating • Service Days: Monday-Friday • Service Hours: 6:00 AM to 10 PM • Only Pay for In-session Periods • Ability to Count Ridership • Service Frequency: • Do not Extend Paratransit Area – 15 Minute Bi-directional on University – 20 Minute to Medical/Arena – 30 Minute Night Service

Key ey S Shut uttle tle Stops tops Shuttle Stop Activity Tiers - Lower - Middle - Upper

Decision ecision-ma making king – Pros/ os/Cons F ons From om Univ Univer ersity sity P Per erspectiv spective Pros Cons Greater level and consistency of driver training Operating cost is greater (in most years). with CAT (Enhanced Student Safety) Capital cost is not directly integrated into overall More appropriate vehicle. operating cost. Less time spent addressing complaints Less control over decisions (special services, etc.). Still have some university-based transit costs. Year-to-Year (Quarter-to-Quarter) cost stability. Reduced university staff administrative time More opportunity for cost control while maintaining level of service. Better integration of transit service between campus and Grand Forks Service likely operates during worse inclement weather Reduced maintenance staff demand

Cost C ost Compa omparison ison – 5-Years F s Futur uture CAT O Operated ed UND O Operated Ope perating Co Costs by Variable Rent nt Estimated ed UND A Allo llocated Amou mount 4 Annu nnual Allocation Model Operatin ing Annu nnual Year Increase In Operatin ing Co Cost 1 Cost 2 Co In Increase 3 Low Middle Uppe pper 2020 0.0% $456,500 $361,800 0.0% $315,800 $361,800 $402,400 2021 2.7% $468,800 3.3% $326,200 $373,700 $415,700 Future Amounts Will 2022 2.7% $481,500 3.3% $337,000 $386,000 $429,400 Require 2023 2.7% $494,500 Evaluation/ 3.3% $348,100 $398,700 $443,600 Negotiation 2024 2.7% $507,900 3.3% $359,600 $411,900 $458,200 After First Year of Operation 2025 2.7% $521,600 3.3% $371,500 $425,500 $473,300 Notes 1 - 2020 Operating Cost reflects amount assigned to UND through the CAT Cost Allocation Model 2 - Assumes the agreed to $94,700 is subtracted from the Estimated Allocation Model Operating Cost for 2020. Future reallocation will depend on updated UND service allocation and city financial capacity to support 3 - Annual percent change reflects average change from estimated trend line of 2013-2019 bus rent. 4 - 2019 costs based on recalculating total based on using trend average, one standard deviation lower and one standard deviation higher rates.

Veh ehicle icle Costs osts (July uly 2019) 2019) New ew Fly Flyer er Veh ehicle e Co Cost Item em Ite Item C Cost st Specified Model Bus $478,000 Syncromatics AVL $16,700 Farebox $16,200 Wrap $2,000 $512,900 Local Match – 20% of Vehicle Cost: $103,000 Each Vehicle

The F e Futur uture e of of Campus mpus • Campus Master Plan: – Any changes that impact routes? – Any changes that activity impact flow patterns? • If Changes, Address in Route Concept Planning: – Role of Campus Road – Feasibility of “Loops”

The F e Futur uture e of of Campus mpus • Campus Master Plan: – Any changes that impact routes? – Any changes that activity impact flow patterns? • If Changes, Address in Route Concept Planning: – Role of Campus Road – Feasibility of “Loops”

The F e Futur uture e of of Campus mpus • Campus Master Plan: – Any changes that impact routes? – Any changes that activity impact flow patterns? • If Changes, Address in Route Concept Planning: – Role of Campus Road – Feasibility of “Loops”

Outsta Outstanding D nding Discus iscussion/ sion/Decision ecision Items tems • Fares – Currently Fare Free: – Retain? – Change? – Faculty/Staff – Fare Policy for CAT Use? • Students Fare Free – Student Fees Pay $0.75/Trip (Billed by CAT) • In Future – Better Integrate CAT Routes and Shuttle Routes?

Wr Wrap-Up Up • List Action Items: – IS there anything else needed as input to decision-making? • Public Meetings: – Schedule • Set Final Workshop: – Is one needed?