Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 06.30.2009MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP JUNE 30, 2009 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by President Doug Poehls at 6:30 p.m. on June 30, 2009. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: x Emelie Eaton _x Kate Hart _x Chuck Rodgers x Alex Wilkins _x Doug Poehls x Mark Mace Chuck Dickerson _x_ Norm Stamper OTHERS PRESENT: Sam Painter Mary Embleton Bill Sheridan James Caniglia Derek Yeager Public Input (three-minute limit): Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda. There was no public input. Laurel Ambulance Service: • Appointments of Brandon Ihde and Randy Johnson President Poehls stated that the ambulance attendants were not available tonight, but the appointments will be on the July 7a' council agenda. Planning: • LSC Transit Consulting Services presentation - Feasibility of transit Michael Felschow, LSC Transportation, gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding a proposed transit system for the City of Laurel. Copies of sections of the Laurel, Montana, Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Transit Coordination and Options were distributed to the council. Michael stated that the City of Laurel, in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), contracted with LSC Transportation Consultants to complete a Transit Development Plan. The plan focuses on public transportation issues for the residents of Laurel. He spoke regarding the service options and draft goals and objectives. The types of transit service include fixed-route service, demand-response service, service routes, flexible routes, regional and commuter service, and vanpool service. Michael spoke regarding coordination strategies with Laurel entities that provide transportation services. The service options proposed for Laurel include: Option 1 - Demand-Response Service; Option 2 -- Flex-Route Service; Option 3 - Regional Service; and Option 4 - Coordination Strategies. Council Workshop Minutes of June 30, 2009 LSC prepared preliminary recommendations for review by the City of Laurel staff, the city council, a Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and the public. Following this review, LSC will develop a plan to incorporate the transit service alternatives to meet the community's needs. The Service Recommendations, as stated in the Transit Development Plan, are: "LSC recommends that the City of Laurel begin by developing elements of Options 1 and 4. These recommended services include demand-response service in the City of Laurel, a vanpool program, and some of the coordination elements from Option 4. The total estimated level of service for the demand-response service is 3,060 annual revenue-hours. The estimated annual ridership for the demand-response service and vanpool program is 24,100 passengers. The recommended service will meet all of the goals and objectives set down for this planning process. The key element that the recommended transit service plan will achieve is filling in service gaps by generating public transit service and linking the cities of Laurel and Billings, Montana." Michael spoke regarding the capital recommendations for vehicles and equipment. There was discussion. At Michael's request, the council unofficially agreed that LSC should move forward to develop the recommended plan. Another presentation will be made to the council in August. • Resolution - Accept Renewable Resource Project Planning Grant James Caniglia stated that the resolution is to accept a $20,000 Renewable Resource Project Planning Grant to study the Laurel city dump for preliminary engineering and for soil investigation. The city applied for a $25,000 grant and received this $20,000 no-match grant. The DEQ wants the city to do this at the old city dump, which is located north of Riverside Park. Fire Department: • Resolutions - Fire District Contracts Derek Yeager stated that the two resolutions are for the three-year service agreements with Fire Districts No. 5 and No. 8. District No. 5 is commonly known as the Valley Drive area, extending all the way east to the airport. District No. 8 is in Carbon County and includes the White Horse Bench, Byam Road, and Spring Creek areas. Chuck Dickerson asked how the fire districts received the new contracts since Derek became the full-time fire chief. He also asked regarding support for a new fire hall. Derek has received a lot of feedback and response from the community in particular, and districts have called with questions about how they can help, how the agreements can be restructured, and the fee structures for the future. Derek stated that the fire service areas and some of the fire districts are willing to contribute to the fire hall, but they want to see a plan. Others are hesitant and skeptical and do not see how it is equitable. Education will be needed, but Derek thinks those are in the minority of those with whom he has talked. Derek has attended the meetings of the fire districts, which has had a positive impact. Public Works Department: • Resolution- Landfill Use Agreement with the City of Billings Bill Sheridan stated that the cost for the 12-month landfill use agreement will increase to $15 per ton. The City of Laurel has a good working relationship with the City of Billings for this agreement. The resolution will be on the July 7th council agenda. • Resolution - Task Order No. 12 with Great West Engineering for ditch mitigation Bill stated that Mary Embleton and Kurt Markegard recently went to Helena to testify on the city's behalf on another project. At that time, they were informed about the possibility of receiving about $100,000 and 2 Council Workshop Minutes of June 30, 2009 submitted a request for the funding. They came up with the need for improvements for ditches throughout the city. The city received the grant, but has not actually spent any money yet. Great West Engineering will provide direction and the engineering for the ditch improvements. The resolution will be on the July 7th council agenda. • Resolution - Utilities Agreement with MDOT for changes to water and sanitary sewer facilities for 8`h Avenue Project Bill stated that the 8`h Avenue project will definitely move forward. Improvements to the water and sewer system will begin this year. The city's responsibility for construction of the water and sewer part of the project will total $741,080.75.. The resolution will be on the July 7th council agenda. • Resolution - Task Order No. 13 with Great West Engineering for South Laurel street improvements Bill stated that the task order is for the engineering for street improvements on Southeast 4'h Street. The city intends to pursue a special improvement district for this project, as it would be in everybody's best interest to improve the roadway. There is a slim possibility that stimulus money could be received for this, as all three elected officials have been approached about it. The resolution will be on the July 7th council agenda. Clerk/Treasurer: • Ordinance - Approve recodification of ordinances Mary Embleton stated that the ordinance approves the recodification of the city's ordinances recently submitted to the Municipal Code Corporation. The ordinances were codified into the Laurel Municipal Code book, the city attorney's office reviewed the updates, and the council now needs to adopt them as per state statute. The city is required to do this once every five years, but the City of Laurel chooses to recodify annually because the council actively updates the ordinances. • Resolution - Insurance transfers Mary explained that the resolution transfers funds from the mill-levied insurance funds to the General Fund. This is done twice a year. The second big tax payment was received and the numbers are close to the budgeted figures. According to the worksheet provided, the two insurance funds are close to supporting the General Fund requirements. The resolution will be on the July 7th council agenda. Cemetpry Commission: • Resolution - Adopting the Laurel Cemetery Policy & Procedures (Norm Stamper) Norm Stamper stated that Cathy Gabrian, Kurt Markegard, and the Cemetery Commission reviewed the policy and procedures. He reviewed the following changes: Hours of interment: Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Saturdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. at overtime rate. Graveside funerals will not be scheduled after 3:00 p.m. Norm stated that this would help prevent overtime costs, especially with the extra work from the contract for the veterans' cemetery. The City of Laurel reserves the right to require a minimum of 48 hours notice for burials. No person other than City authorized personnel shall excavate a gravesite unless authorized by the Mayor or his designee. The City of Laurel would encourage funeral directors to limit the interment time at the graveside to one-half (1 /2) hour to facilitate the caretaker's work. 3 Council Workshop Minutes of June 30, 2009 Norm stated that the Cemetery Commission discussed this. People that are grieving and talking at funerals will not be pushed out of the cemetery, but it is a recommendation to funeral directors to facilitate this so employees can finish the work in a timely manner. The City does not install headstones or footstones and requires prior notification of the placement of these monuments by calling the PWD. The City is not responsible for the repair or replacement of headstones, footstones, or monuments from damages due to theft or vandalism. Donations may be made for purchase of trees, but may only be planted in designated areas under the direction of the Public Works Department. The Tree Board and PWD determine the type of trees that will be planted. Norm stated that donations are encouraged, but the city has the final decision regarding type and placement of the tree. Norm mentioned that the Cemetery Commission intends to move the kiosk in Thomson Park and install it by the shed at the cemetery. Policy and procedures information, as well as a grave locator, will be posted in the kiosk. The Cemetery Commission unanimously approved the Policy & Procedures for the City of Laurel Cemetery and recommends that the council approve it. The resolution will be on the July 7th council agenda. Executive review: • Resolution - Road easement President Poehls stated that the resolution approves a public easement or right-of-way agreement for Riverside Sand and Gravel to their gravel pit located north of the landfill area. Sam stated that the agreement was sent to the landowner, and his attorney contacted Sam's office today. The landowner wants to change a couple of the terms, so Sam is not absolutely sure this item will be on next Tuesday's agenda. If an agreement is reached between the city and the landowner, the information will be sent to the council by Friday. The city's basic requirements for the right-of-way are listed in the agreement. • Recognition of Lois Markegard's service on the Tree Board - July 7th council meeting Mayor Olson will recognize Lois Markegard for her service on the Tree Board. • Appointments: o Yellowstone Conservation District, Urban Supervisor: Marieanne Hanser to a 3-year term ending June 30, 2012 The appointment will be on the July 7th council agenda. o Tree Board: Sue Carter to a three-year term ending June 30, 2012. The appointment will be on the July 7th council agenda. o Insurance and Benefit Committee: Local No. 303; Local No. 316; Non-union Representatives President Poehls stated that the non-union representatives will be Bill Sheridan and Cathy Gabrian. The Local No. 303 representatives will be Monica Salo and James Huertas, and the Local No. 316 representatives will be Don Nelson and H.P.Nurenberger. The appointments will be on the July 7th council agenda. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of June 30, 2009 • Council Issues: o City of Laurel's website Bill explained that the city's librarian and another individual will make changes to the website soon. Any suggestions regarding the website would be appreciated. o Spraying at the parks (Chuck Dickerson) Chuck asked when the parks would be sprayed, as there are dandelions in Murray, Thomson, and Riverside Parks. Bill will find out and provide the information at next week's council meeting. Other items Chuck Rodgers stated that Yellowstone Concrete Cutting has been cutting the holes for flower vases in the veterans' section of the cemetery. The contractor has about 35 left to do. Chuck explained that about 15 of the headstones are at sitting at an angle and need to be straightened up. Brookstone and Billings Monument have been contacted to provide an estimate to straighten the headstones. When the bids are received, the information will be submitted to the clerk's office for proper procedure. Chuck Dickerson stated that minutes of the Bright n' Beautiful Committee were distributed recently. The May 20th minutes indicated that items are needed for a silent auction to raise money for Bright n' Beautiful, and Chuck asked the council to consider donating items. Review of draft council agenda for Jul 7 2009 There were no changes. Attendance at the July 7, 2009 council meeting Norm and Alex may not be. able to attend. Announcements There were none. The council workshop adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy Allen Council Secretary NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 5 r? Laurel, Montana Transit Development Plan . Technical Memorandum #2 Transit Coordination and Options TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Laurel, Montana Transit Development Plan Technical Memorandum #2 Transit Coordination and Options Prepared for: City of Laurel 115 West 1" Street Laurel, MT 59044 (406) 628-4796 Prepared by: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 516 North Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868 LSC #094140 June 9, 2009 1 The City of Laurel, in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), contracted with LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to complete a Transit Development Plan (TDP). The plan specifically focuses on public transportation issues for the resi- CHAPTERI Introduction dents of Laurel, Montana. The plan will examine the transit needs, alternatives, and programs of the City of Laurel. 1 This second interim report presents a summary of service options, as well as the draft goals and objectives. The report focuses on transportation for the general public, elderly, disabled, and commuters. There is currently limited transportation service within the City of Laurel, as well as between the cities of Laurel and Billings, Montana. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to analyze and recommend strategies for the City of Laurel which will affect the delivery of public transportation services over the next five years. The finished product of this study will describe the existing conditions in the region related to public transit services, discuss service and other alterna- tives for meeting public transportation needs into the future, identify the locally ' preferred set of alternatives, and present an implementation plan for the next five years. i REPORT CONTENTS Chapter II presents the draft goals and objectives for development of the general transit service. The types of transit service vehicles ' that can be used are discussed in Chapter 111. Chapter IV presents the service options that can be implemented in the study area. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page I-1 Introduction Chapter V discusses the preliminary recommendations for vehicles, coordination strategies, and service options. STUDY APPROACH As in many regions, the City of Laurel is taking a closer look at public transit ser- vices and is seeking to find the most effective means of providing those services. Currently, public transportation is provided by several human service programs in the community, which are detailed later in this document. A key element in the plan will be to clearly evaluate the unmet transportation needs of the local resi- dents and businesses, and the need for regional service between the. cities of Laurel and Billings. The study will focus on the feasibility of providing public tran- sit services to meet the community's needs. One important step toward providing an integrated community-wide and regional transportation system is involving key players such as MDT, Yellowstone County, the Yellowstone County Council on the Aging, other human service programs, local governments, and residents. Individuals from each key stakeholder agency will serve as members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) for this plan- ning process. Project Team An initial "kick-off meeting" was held at Laurel City Hall on March 11, 2009. The meeting was attended by key stakeholders from the City of Laurel, Yellow- stone County, and other local agencies within the study area, that have transportation concerns for the community. This project team met to discuss the project goals, priorities, and a time line for comple- tion of the final study. The project team also discussed the local stakeholders who will be critical in completing the transit study for the area. The second SAC meeting was held on May 7, 2009 to discuss Technical Memoran- dum #1 and provide feedback/ comments to the LSC team. During this time, a public open house was also conducted to gather input regarding the transit issues LSC Page 1--2 Laurel Transit Development Flan, Technical Memorandum #2 Introduction from residents of the study area. The next set of SAC and public meetings will be held in June 2009 to discuss the service options and recommendations. Stakeholders The group of local stakeholders identified by the project team included the fol- lowing organizations: • City of Laurel Planning Department • City of Red Lodge • Yellowstone County • MET (City of Billings transit service) • Yellowstone County Council on the Aging (YCCOA) • Crossings (senior living center) • Elderly programs • Educational institutions • TANF • Developmental Educational Assistance Program These groups represent organizations that provide transportation services, as well as those that may have a specific transportation need. These stakeholders were contacted to provide input for the transit study and help identify the local trans- portation issues. Opportunities for Public Involvement Throughout the planning process, public involvement is key to the success of the transit plan for the community. At critical points during the process, public meet- ings will be announced and held where citizen participation is openly welcome and appreciated. Three public open houses sessions are scheduled for May through August 2009. The open houses will offer members of the community an opportunity to provide public input regarding transportation issues which should be addressed as part of the planning process. Community residents will be asked to comment on the existing and future transit services within the region. The public will be given the opportunity to state which transit services and alternatives they think are nec- essary in order to address the identified issues and meet the established goals. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page f-3 Introduction SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES During the March 2009 meeting, the LSC team briefed the SAC members on the study process to be under- taken over the six-month period. Key stakeholders involved with public transit services were identified. The major issues and concerns regarding public transporta- tion were discussed. These major issues were reaffirmed at the SAC and public meetings held in May 2009. Following are summaries of the major issues: • Transportation to and from places -of employment in the City of Billings. • Mobility of the elderly and disabled to and from medical appointments, work, and shopping in the cities of Laurel and Billings. • Student transportation to and from the City of Billings. • Access to and from work, medical, and shopping locations for the low-income population (due to the lack of private vehicles) in the cities of Laurel and Billings. • Implementation of the transit service in the short term, and maintenance of the transit service over the long term. • Regional service between the cities of Laurel, Billings, and Red Lodge. • Coordination of the existing human service programs and private transpor- tation services provided in the western portion of Yellowstone County. • Coordination with MET, which operates the fixed-route transit service in the City of Billings. • Affordable transportation service within the City of Laurel, and between the cities of Laurel and Billings. LSC Page I-4 Laurel Transit Deuelopment Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 1 CHAPTER 11 Goals and Objectives LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., in coordination I with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), has developed a set of draft goals and objectives for the City of Laurel transit service. The goals and objectives are guidelines for the present and future transit operations, i as well as the expansion of transit services for the city. Many transit issues were identified through meetings with SAC members and local human service programs. These public transportation issues were discussed at the March 11, 2009 kick-off meeting. Based on these transit issues, draft goals and objectives were developed. The draft goals were presented to the SAC on May 7, 2009 for review and comment. The goals have been used to develop and evaluate the transit options, projects, and programs for the next five to six years. TRANSIT VISION j The mission statement, goals, and objectives typically form a hierarchical struc- i ture with the mission statement being the most general. Goals support the achievement of the mission, and objectives support the goals. In developing a transit plan, it is necessary to recognize the goals and objectives of public trans- portation as they determine the direction to be taken in the plan. The goals and objectives, along with the corresponding performance standards, provide the spe- cific direction for implementation.. The planning process for the City of Laurel transit service consists of a mission statement, a set of four action goals, and the objectives for each goal. The draft goals and objectives focus on years 2010 to 2015, and support the future transit plans for the city. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum 92 Page 11=1 Goals and Objectives Mission Statement The mission statement establishes the overall direction of an agency and enurner- ates the most generalized set of actions to be achieved by that agency. The mission statement for the City of Laurel transit service is as follows: Goals and Objectives For transportation planning purposes, a goal is defined as a purpose or need that should be attained to address a transportation issue. An objective is a specific method or activity that is designed to achieve an identified goal. The goals and objectives are very important parts of developing the transit plan as they set the overall direc- tion. The goals and objectives must reflect the community's values and desires. Based on the issues and concerns discussed during the March 2009 meeting, as well as the existing and future transportation needs, the following draft goals and objectives were developed. The goals and objectives are meant to pertain specif- ically to the operation of public transit service for the City of Laurel and its role as the primary transit provider within the study area. These goals and objectives have been reviewed by the SAC members. The primary mission of the City of Laurel transit program is to provide quality transit service to city residents. In order to fulfill this mission, a number of goals were identified to guide the future development of public transportation within the study area. LSC Page IT2 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Goals and Objectives Goal #1: Develop a Transit Service that Aids in the Community's Economic Develo ment Objective 1.a: Increase opportunities through unproved access to education, job training, and employment for low-income and disabled individuals. Objective 1.b: Improve transportation linkages by developing public transit ser- vice, thereby allowing individuals to access employment and services more easily within the region. The region includes the cities of Laurel, Billings, and Red Lodge as well as several other communities throughout southeastern Montana. Objective 1.c: Develop a transit service that is easy to use and allows for any individual to use the service. Objective 1.d: Improve the transit service to allow the general public to use the service and increase the mobility of seniors. This will be done by developing a regional transit service between the cities of Laurel, Billings, and Red Lodge. The service should increase ridership by five percent a year over the next six years. Objective 1.e: Improve the local transit service in order to allow all community residents to access shopping, employment, medical facilities, recreation, educa- tional institutions, and special events. Goal #2: Create Financial Sustainability_„of the Transit Service Objective 2.a: Seek out and apply for state and federal grants which may be available for transit service capital or operating support. Objective 2.b: Establish a capital and vehicle replacement fund. Allocate the local contributions on an annual basis to this savings account. The savings account should be sufficient to provide the local match funds required in order to obtain federal grants -for the replacement of vehicles and for new capital facilities. Objective 2.c: Work to maintain and/or develop performance standards to deter- mine the efficiencies and deficiencies of the transit service. Use a comparison of peer communities in determining efficient and effective service. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page 17-3 Goals and Objectives Objective 2.d: Generate local funding for transit through intergovernmerital agreements with local government entities and human service programs. Goal #3: Coordinate and Integrate the Transit Service With Human Service Programs Objective 3.a: The transit service should be discussed with the existing human service programs at the SAC meeting and the Yellowstone Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on a quarterly basis. Objective 3.b: The human service programs should train their clients to use the transit service and provide funding to pay for the transit service supplied to their clients. Objective 3.c: The transit service should coordinate with the human service pro- grams to improve the standard of living for the region's seniors and disabled indi- viduals. The transit service should increase the mobility of seniors and disabled individuals to access senior centers, employment, shopping, medical facilities, recreation, and human service programs. Objective 3.d: Increased marketing of the transit service using all forms of media should be implemented to inform the public of the transit service. Goal #4: Create Cost-Effective and Cost-Efficient Service Objective 4.a: Regional service should achieve a target productivity level of three passengers per hour by 2011 and five passengers per hour by 2014. Objective 4.b: Demand-response transit service in the City of Laurel should achieve a productivity level of three passengers per .hour by 2011. Objective 4.c: The transit service should have costs per revenue-mile, revenue- hour, and passengers comparable to the peer communities. These costs should be reviewed and updated annually by comparing the City of Laurel transit service to other transit services provided in Montana. LSC Page 1T-4 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 CHAPTER IV Service Options INTRODUCTION The basis for any transit plan is the careful consideration of realistic transit ser- vices. The capital requirements, financial plans, and management options can i then be developed to. support the planned services. The main purpose of Chapter I IV is to present different service options. The various types of services that are used by transit providers are presented initially to provide an understanding of how different transit services function. This information-along with the vehicle types, goals, and objectives--was used in developing the transit service alter- natives. The second part of this chapter reviews the coordination strategies that the City of Laurel can attempt to implement with the existing transportation providers and human service programs in order to improve the overall transportation services within the region. The third portion of this chapter presents the transit service options that LSC has developed based on input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), transit drivers, and public. The alternatives developed in this chapter were designed to J address the issues of service area, level of service, type of service, and coordi- nation of existing services in the region. TYPES OF TRANSIT SERVICE The term "transit service" encompasses a wide range of alternatives. Traditionally, people think of transit service as buses operating on a strict schedule. A number of other transit service alternatives exist such as demand-response, fixed-route, flex-route, and commuter transportation. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page IV-1 Service Options Fixed-Route Service Fixed-route service fits the popular description of a transit system with transit vehicles operating on specified routes and following set schedules. Specific bus stops are typically identified for the locations where passengers will be picked up and dropped off. Routes are usually laid out in either a radial or grid pattern. ? Fra0.Re?b Fixed--Route Service Fixed-route service is particularly convenient for passengers without disabi lly'ties. Research has shown that fixed-route passengers are willing to walk up to one- quarter-mile to reach the bus stop. Therefore, a fixed-route service pattern, may be efficiently laid out with routes having one-half-mile spacing. However, indi- viduals with mobility impairments may have difficulty in accessing a fixed-route system. The advantages of fixed-route service are that it can be provided at a relatively low cost on a per-passenger-trip basis, schedule reliability is high since buses do not deviate from their routes, service does not require advance reservations, and ser- vice is easy to understand. Fixed-route transit service is seldom attractive for people with automobiles in smaller communities and rural areas. A private automobile offers flexibility com- pared to the rigid schedule of a faxed-route system. The need to walk even a few hundred feet to a bus stop, wait for the vehicle, and the comparatively slow travel time make the option of a private automobile an easy choice. Where there are sig- nificant congestion issues or limited parking availability, fixed-route transit service becomes a more attractive alternative. The low cost of transit as compared to own- ing and operating a private automobile can also be attractive, especially to young working couples who may be able to use the bus rather than own two vehicles. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that communities with fixed- route transit service also provide complementary paratransit service that operates, at a minimum, in a three-quarter-mile radius of each fixed route. Paratransit ser- vice is typically much more costly to operate than faxed-route service because of LSC Page N-2 Laurel Transit Development Flan, Technical Memorandum #2 Service Options i E i One concept that is being implemented in some communities as an alternative to fixed-route or demand-response service is the service route. A service route is essentially a fixed route spe- cifically designed to serve the elderly and disabled. Typically, a . .. Service Roues LSC the service's characteristics. Fixed routes are established to meet the highest demand travel patterns, while paratransit service must serve many origins and destinations in a dispersed pattern. Therefore, fixed-route operations lack the flex- ibility to meet the needs of passengers with any special requirements in low den- sity areas. Demand-Response Service Demand-response transit service, frequently termed Bial- a-ride, is characterized as door-to-door transit service scheduled by a dispatcher. With demand-response ser- vice, advance reservations are typically required, although dil some immediate requests may be filled if time permits Detnand-Response Service and if the service is particularly needed. The general pub- lic transit service operated by the Dawson County Urban Transportation District in Glendive, Montana and STAR in Rock Springs/Green River, Wyoming are exam- ples of successful demand-response services. The concept of demand-response was originally developed in the early 1970s as an alternate form of public transportation for the general public. The original efforts proved to be more expensive than envisioned and did not attract the ridership Atr that was forecast. As a result, demand-response transit has i ? . Demand-Response been used almost exclusively in this country for elderly and Service disabled passengers. However, many communities are begin- ning to recognize the advantages of demand-response service for low-density areas with low levels of transit demand. Improved technology has led to improvements in dispatching and scheduling, which has increased the efficiency of demand- response service and allows for real-time dispatching. Service Routes Laurel Transit Deuelopment Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-3 Service Options service route winds through residential neighborhoods with high concentrations of elderly and disabled persons in a pattern that passes within one or two blocks of all houses. The service route also directly serves major destinations such as senior centers, commercial areas, and medical centers. However, the service route provides a higher in-vehicle travel time and a longer wait for the bus than is normally acceptable to the general public. The Bus in Butte, Montana and MET Transit in Billings, Montana are examples of systems with successful service routes. Flexible Routes Another alternative is flexible routes such as route deviation and checkpoint ser- vice. With flexible routes, transit vehicle dispatching and scheduling must be done carefully to ensure that vehicles are available to serve the designated stops at the scheduled times. To provide a reasonable amount of flexibility, a lenient definition of on-time performance is typically used with a 10- to 15-minute window at each designated stop. Route Deviation With route deviation, transit vehicles follow a specific route, but can leave the route to serve demand-response origins and destinations. The vehicles are required to return to the designated route within one block of the point of deviation to ensure that all intersections along the route are served. The passengers on the bus may have a longer travel time than for fixed-route service and the service reliability is _ _ Route Deviation lower. However, the ADA-mandated complementary para- transit service is not necessary since the bus can deviate from the route to pick up disabled passengers. Checkpoint Service Under checkpoint service, the transit vehicles make periodic scheduled stops at major activity centers. The specific routes are not established between checkpoints, which allows the vehicles to provide demand-response service and alleviates the LSC ?oo I Checkpoint Service Page N-4 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Service Options { need for the ADA-mandated complementary paratransit service. Riders are picked up, typically at a reduced fare, at the checkpoints and are taken either to another i checkpoint or to a demand-response-specific destination. Service between the checkpoints does not require advance reservations. However, service from any other location on a demand-response basis requires an advance reservation so that the vehicles can be scheduled for pick-up and drop-off. Checkpoint service j offers an advantage over route deviation because there are no specified routes for the vehicles to use. Checkpoint service requires only that the vehicle arrive at the next checkpoint within the designated time window. Regional and Commuter Service With regional and commuter service, the route is primarily designed to link dif- ferent communities together for employment purposes. These communities may be within the same geographic area. In urban areas, this type of service is com- monly known as express or limited express service. In rural areas, the regional and commuter service links communities across the study area with each other and with communities outside the study area. a Vanpool Service Vanpool service operates more of a point-to-point function. Vanpool service gath- ers riders within a community and then travels directly to a major employment center. Normally, a transit agency owns and maintains the vehicles. Individuals using the vanpool share the travel cost and may even share the driving responsi- bilities. The schedule and route of the vanpool service depend upon the individ- uals participating in the vanpool. Vanpool service is limited to individuals within the program, and has limited service for medical or shopping trips. Vanpool ser- vice is primarily for employment trips for non-disabled individuals, since there are liability issues with disabled individuals riding on vanpool service. I COORDINATION STRATEGIES This section reviews the types of coordination strategies that the City of Laurel I may implement with the existing transportation providers and human service programs in order to improve the overall transportation services within the region. GSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-5 Service Options Levels of Coordination There are varying levels of coordination across a broad spectrum of operating sce- narios. They can range from very low levels of coordination (such as sharing rides on several different agency vehicles) to high levels of coordination (such as shared vehicles, shared maintenance, transportation broker, and consolidated service). Coordination has been interpreted as everything from telephone conversations to transfer of vehicle ownership. The coordination of services generally takes some time to set up and an amount of effort by the local transportation providers and human service programs. Following are the four different phases or levels of coordination with regard to the shared use and efficient operation of equipment and facilities: • Communication involves the recognition and understanding of a prob- lem and the discussion of possible solutions. This improves the work- ing relationships among the various bodies who are in a position to influence transportation developments within their particular juris- dictions. Cooperation involves individuals/ agencies actively working together in a loose association in a collaborative manner. The individuals/ agen- cies retain their separate identities. Coordination involves bringing together individuals/ agencies to act together in a concerted way, in order to provide for a smooth interac- tion of the separate units. The main concerns regarding coordination are common funds, equipment, facilities, and operations. The individ- uals/agencies preserve their separate identities. • Consolidation involves joining together or merging agencies for mutual advantage. In the case of transportation services, consolidation is used in reference to a fully integrated transportation system in which the transportation providers have been combined into one integrated sys- tem.. Individual agency identity is no longer maintained. Many transportation operators have found coordination to be desirable and bene- ficial. Coordination results in reduced overlap and duplication of service, more service capacity, greater productivity, improved operating efficiency, and reduced capital and operating costs. LSC Page IV--6 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 1 z i Service Options Resource Management A key element of any coordination effort is the development of resource manage- ment, in which transportation capital and personnel are used in the most effective manner in order to reduce wasteful duplication of service and capital investment. The first set of resource management objectives, targeted on greater efficiencies, focuses on reducing the duplication and fragmentation in operating, administer- ing, and funding transportation services. Specific strategies for achieving these objectives include reducing the following: i • Operating and administrative expenses; • Capital costs on vehicles and other equipment; and i j Other operating costs such as maintenance, fuel, and insurance. The second set of resource management objectives-targeted on more productive or effective services-focuses on improving the acceptability, accessibility, adapt- ? ability, affordability, and availability of transportation services within the area. Specific strategies for achieving these objectives include increasing the following: • Days and hours of service; • Service area; Different kinds of persons and trip purposes served; r • Accessibility of vehicles and facilities for people with special needs; Public information concerning services; and • Funding available to help pay the service costs. Common Coordination Strategies f There are different types of coordination strategies that can be implemented with a the transportation providers and human service programs within the study area. Joint Procurement r Joint procurement (or bulk purchase) is a cost-effective approach to increasing purchasing power. Joint maintenance can be done quite easily between agencies 3 in a given locale. Many times, agencies contract out maintenance to a local ven- dor. While there may be very few qualified maintenance professionals, it may allow a competitive process to do fleet maintenance between multiple agencies. Insur- ance pooling is likely the most difficult joint procurement possibility. i LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-7 Service Options Shared Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facilities The agencies can share indoor storage space and maintenance facilities in geo- graphic localities. Shared storage can aid in reducing engine wear during Bold weather startup if vehicles will otherwise be stored outside. Joint Grant Applications The transit providers in the region should agree to submit a single grant to the state and/or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for transit funding for their cap- ital and operational needs. Joint Training Programs Joint training programs between agencies, in everything from preventative main- tenance to safe wheelchair tie-down procedures, can lead to more highly stilled employees. Joint training can also lead to reduced training costs, with each agency possessing a specialized trainer who can be responsible for one or more disciplines (such as Passenger Assistance Training [PATS] or preventative main- tenance training). The agencies can also purchase special training from reputable organizations/ companies and allow other agencies' employees to attend. Training costs should be shared between the agencies. Sharing Expertise Similar to sharing training resources, agencies can share their expertise in such areas as grant writing skills, computer skills, and general assistance in operation of transportation services (such as tips for dispatching or accounting procedures). Sharing expertise maybe as general as a list of personnel across the region who have some expertise in a particular field that may benefit another agency. A "yellow pages" of subject matter experts made available to each agency may be helpful in operating transportation service. Coordinating Council Similar to a coalition, a coordinating council is made up of various agencies and partners with a common goal of coordinating transportation resources. This group differs from a coalition in that it is primarily made up of agencies that have a need for service and other groups (such as local municipalities) specifically formed to LSC Page 1-V-8 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Service Options I accomplish a strategic goal (such as to implement a new service). The coordinating council acts similarly to a SAC in either a local or regional area. 1 Joint Plannin and Decision Makin Joint planning and decision making involves agencies working cooperatively with each other in order to discuss their clients' needs and become involved in the local planning of services. For example, several local human service programs may meet with the local transportation providers to develop operational plans that attempt to meet the needs of the agencies' clients. Coalitions I A coalition is a group of agencies committed to coordinating transportation and that have access to funding. The coalition should include local stakeholders, transportation providers, human service programs, decision makers, business 9 leaders, councils of government, users, and others as appropriate. The coalition can be either an informal or formal group that is recognized by the decision makers and that has some standing within the community. Coalitions can. be i established for a specific purpose (such as to obtain specific funding) or for broad-based purposes (such as to educate local communities about transportation i needs). I Vehicle Sharing Vehicle sharing requires that agencies own and operate vehicles. Memoranda of ' Understanding or Joint Agreements are needed for this strategy to work properly. The agencies that operate vehicles are able to share those vehicles with other agencies in a variety of circumstances, such as when one agency has a vehicle mechanical breakdown or when capacity for a specific trip is at its maximum. Contracts for Service An agency can contract with other agencies to provide needed trips. This can be done occasionally on an as-needed basis or as part of scheduled service. One example is a local Head Start contracting for service with a local transportation provider. The contract revenue can then be used as local match for the transpor- LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page 1-V-9 Service Options tation provider, using the same drivers and vehicles as used previously. Many times the drivers are also Head Start aides or teachers. Provide Vehicles An agency can provide a used vehicle, one that is either being replaced or retired, to another agency. This can be done either through a transfer of title, donatioza or a small price (in the case of a retired vehicle); or sale to a local agency in need of a replacement vehicle. One-Call Center A shared informational telephone line can provide potential users with the most convenient access to information on all of the transportation services within the region. The cost should be shared by the participating agencies. Centralized Functions (Reservations. Scheduling, Dispatchin A single office can oversee the dispatching of vehicles and the scheduling of res- ervations for all of the participating agencies in order to provide transportation service within the region. The cost should be shared by the participating agencies. Trans ortation Broker A third-party agency can be created as a transportation broker to interface between the agencies and users. The transportation broker should centralize dis- patching, record keeping, and possibly vehicle maintenance. Consolidated Transportation Pro ram A consolidated transportation program occurs when all of the transit services are provided by a single agency. This includes the vehicles, facilities, administration, maintenance, and operations. TRANSIT SERVICE ALTERNATIVES A basis for any transit plan is the careful consideration of the realistic transit ser- vice alternatives. Capital requirements, financial plans, and management options can then be developed to support the planned transit services. Each alternative LSC Page N-10 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 a 0 i Service Options must be evaluated using the locally established goals g y and objectives. Any alter- native which does not support the mission statement of public transportatiori or the corresponding goals and objectives should not be considered for implemen- tation. The main purpose of this alternatives analysis is to determine the type and level 1 of service that the City of Laurel can implement to meet the needs of the com- munity if funding becomes available. The main issues that these options are designed to examine includes transportation for seniors, disabled, and low-income households; employment trips to and from the City of Billings; and service gaps. The options identify the type and level of transit service that can be implemented in the study area, and were based on information and input gathered from the a SAC and public. ! Maintain Status Quo Services A good starting point for the evaluation of transit service alternatives is the con- sideration of the "status quo." The status quo option involves no change in the existing transportation services. This option is a viable alternative which may be appropriate when the current service meets the community's needs and satisfies the goals and objectives for public transportation services. There are two existing transportation providers in the region including Crossings and the Yellowstone County Council on the Aging (YCCOA). However, little general public transportation service is provided in the study area. Based on information i gathered by LSC, the total combined operational budget for the above programs is estimated at about $32,000. Based on the goals and objectives for the study area, the status quo alternative will not meet the region's existing transportation needs. Advantages The advantage of maintaining the existing transportation services is that there is no additional cost for the community. LSC Laurel Transit Deuelopment Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-11 Service Options Disadvantages The major disadvantage of maintaining the existing transportation services is that unmet transportation needs will continue. These needs include medical, employ- ment, and educational trips. Option 1 also does not meet the regional need of linking the cities of Laurel and Billings. These disadvantages will impact the quality of life for residents of the City of Laurel. Option 1 - Demand-Response Service_in Laurel Services In order to meet the transportation needs in the study area and based on public I input, the LSC team and the SAC developed various transit service options. Option 1 addresses all of the identified service gaps and provides demand-response service in the City of Laurel. Figure IV-1 presents the service area and key tran. sit locations for Option 1. The key locations include the medical center; post off-ice, City Hall, senior center, Crossings, and Wal-Mart. Table IV-1 presents the level of service, operating hours, number of vehicles, and operating cost for Option 1. The estimated level of service is 3,060 annual revenue-hours. The estimated annual ridership is about 16,950 passengers. This was based on information from the peer community analysis and an analysis of the region's transit demand. Capital Based on the level of service, Option 1 will need two vehicles (including one spare vehicle). The City of Laurel may not need to invest in a transit facility for system administration and vehicle storage since the City already has facilities for the administration and maintenance of fleet vehicles. The City will need to invest in office equipment and dispatching hardware/ software for the operation of the transit service. The estimated cost of the fleet and equipment is about $170,000. Since FTA may pay for 80 percent of the cost, the local share will be about $34,000. The cost details are presented in Table IV-5 (presented later in this chapter) LSC Page N-12 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 b w r CIO c? b ?o P Table IV-11 Option I Level of Service - Cost Estimates Total Dail Total Annual Operating Services # of Veh. Vehicle- Miles Vehicle- Hours Vehicle- Miles Vehicle- Hours Operating Days Annual Ridership Pass. per Hour Cost Annual Cost ($) per Pass. Local Demand-Response Service (Laurel) 6:00 am to 6:D0 pm 1 108 12 27,540 3,060 255 16,950 5.5 $161,606 $9.53 Note: Costs based on LSC analysis, 2009. Service Options I Advanta es A major advantage of Option _1 is that it increases the mobility and access for resi- dents in the City of Laurel. Option 1 also increases transit services to the pop- ulation and areas that have the greatest transit needs. This results in a better benefit-to-cost ratio than the City operating fixed-route service. 1 Disadvantages The major disadvantage of Option 1 is the annual operating and capital casts, I which are estimated at about $161,600 and $170,000, respectively. The total fixst- year setup cost is estimated at about $331,600. Without significant state and FTA assistance, the cost of Option 1 can negatively impact the City of Laurel's general fund. Another disadvantage is that the City currently has no experience in oper- ating a transit system. This results in a learning curve which can lead to ineffi- ciencies in the transit service operations for the first few years. The final disad- vantage of this option is that it only operates service within the City of Laurel and does not meet the goal of regional service linkage with the City of Billings. Model Evaluation and Summa Appendix A presents the TCRP models that LSC used to estimate the level of ser- vice and the number of trips that can be served with Option 1. LSC also used, the peer community analysis that was developed for this study to determine the rider- ship estimates. On an average weekday, the ridership will be about 60 passengers. When program service is included, the annual ridership is estimated at about 1 16,950 passengers. As presented in Table IV-1, Option 1 will result in the following estimates: • $9.53 cost per passenger-trip • $161,600 annual operating cost • 5.5 passengers per hour 16,950 annual passengers I.R(' Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page 1V-I5 Service Options Option 2 - Flex-Route Service Services option 2 addresses the identified service gaps by creating a flex route that oper- ates one vehicle in the City of Laurel. Figure IV-2 presents the route and service area for Option 2. Table IV-2 presents the level of service, operating hours, num- ber of vehicles, and operating cost for Option 2. The estimated level of service is 3,050 annual revenue-hours. The estimated annual ridership is about 17,433 pas- sengers. This option was developed based on input from the SAC. Capital Based on the level of service, Option 2 will need two body-on-chassis vehicles (including one spare vehicle). The City of Laurel may not need to invest in a transit facility for system administration and vehicle storage, since the City already has facilities for the administration and maintenance of fleet vehicles. The City will need to invest in office equipment and dispatching hardware/ software for oper- ation of the transit service. The estimated cost of the fleet and equipment is about $170,000. Since FTA may pay for 80 percent of the cost, the local share will be about $34,000. The cost details are presented in Table IV-5 (presented later in this chapter) . Advantages A major advantage of Option 2 is that it increases the mobility and access for res- idents throughout the City of Laurel. Another advantage is that, unlike Option. 1, the rider does not have to call in advance in order to get access to transportation services. The individual rider only needs to walk to the corner and wait for the bus to pass by. LSC Page N-16 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 In p m V b R m r ro 0 R R. N Service Options Disadvanta es The major disadvantage of Option 2 is the annual operating and capital casts, which are estimated at about $170,200 and $170,000, respectively. The total first- year setup cost is estimated at about $340,200. Without significant state and FTA assistance, the cost of Option 2 can negatively impact the City of Laurel's general 3 fund. Another disadvantage is that the City currently has no experience in oper- 1 ating a flex-route transit service. This results in a learning curve which can lead to inefficiencies in the transit service operations for the first few years. Also A Option 2 will generate a low number of trips per hour for flex-route service, which is traditionally eight passengers per hour or higher. The final disadvantage of Option 2 is that it only operates service within the City of Laurel and does not meet the goal of regional service linkage with the City of Billings. Model Evaluation and Summary Appendix A presents the TCRP models that LSC used to. estimate the level of ser- vice and the number of trips that can be served with Option 2. LSC also used the I peer community analysis that was developed for this study to determine the rider- ship estimates. On an average weekday, ridership will be about 44 passengers. When paratransit service is included, annual ridership is estimated at about 17,433 passengers. As presented in Table 1V-2, Option 2 will result in the following estimates: • $9.76 cost per passenger-trip • $170,200 annual operating cost • 5.7 passengers per hour ? 6 17,433 annual passengers Option 3 - Regional Service Services Option 3 is designed to address the issue of linking the City of Laurel with the cities of Billings and Red Lodge. The main purpose of Option 3 is to serve employ- ment, medical, and shopping trips to the City of Billings. The linkage to the City of Red Lodge will provide access to employment and recreational trips at the ski area. Figure IV-3 presents the route structures of Option. Table IV-3 presents the LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page N-19 Service Options level of service for Option 3 and reflects the maximum usage of the regional ser- vice. The estimated level of service is 2,270 annual revenue-hours. The estimated annual ridership is about 15,780 passengers. Two routes will link the cities of Laurel and Billings, and one route will link the cities of Laurel, Billings, and Red Lodge. The first Billings route will operate one bus from downtown Laurel to the new MET transfer station in downtown Billings. The second Billings route will operate one bus from downtown Laurel to the MLET transfer station at Stewart Park in Billings. Each Billings route bus will operate four round-trips at 6:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. The Red Lodge route will operate one bus from the MET transfer station at Stewart Park in Billings to Laurel and then to Red Lodge. The Red Lodge route will operate three round-trips on weekends. These regional routes are a subscription service in that the buses will only operate between the communities when there are at least three to five passengers that have requested a trip on the same day. Capital Based on the level of service, Option 3 will need three buses. The City of Laurel may not. need to invest in a transit facility for system administration and vehicle storage, since the City already has facilities for the administration and mainte- nance of fleet vehicles. The City will need to invest in office equipment and dis- patching hardware/ software for the operation of the transit service. The estimated cost of the fleet and equipment is about $235,000. Since FTA may pay for 80 per- cent of the cost, the local share will be about $47,000. Detailed costs are pre- sented in Table IV-5 (presented later in this chapter). Advantages A major advantage of Option 3 is that it will increase the mobility of residents of the region linking them to access to employment, medical, and shopping trips in the cities of Billings and Red Lodge. Option 3 will also reduce the environmental impact on the region by reducing vehicle emissions. Lg(_ Page N-20 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum 42 Figure IV-3 Option 3 - Regional Routes ?j .` 1 -- MET Downtown ?? Billin s MaII r kid :.J- _ Transfer Center MET Transfer Center iilwater L 0000 `1` Laura{ -- ?7? - Park city -T? -? i i - {? 1 Fromherg Carbon Bridger r? H Red Lodge ?Bearcreek?? ?_ Regional Routes Stewart Park s Downtown Billings Red Lodge Streets ?lnterstates - Highways -- Highways/Major Roads Places Counflas Yellowstone Pryor Big Horn 7 b N N h P Table IV-3 ODtion 3 Level of Service - Cost Estimates Total Dail Total Annual Operating Services # of Veh. Vehicle- Miles Vehicle- Hours Vehicle- Miles Vehicle- Hours Operating Days Annual Ridership Pass. per Hour Cost Annual Cost [$] per Pass. Laurel to Downtown Biilin s AM ! Midda ! PM 1 120 3 30,6D0 765 255 6,723 8.8 $84,867 $12.62 Laurel to Wlin s Stewart Park AM ! Midda ! PA9 1 96 3 24,480 765 255 5,378 7.0 $73,392 $13.65 Laurel to Red Lode 6 one-way trips-per day) Weekend (AN I/ Noon/ PM 1 390 7 40,560 737 104 3,687 5.D $102,552 $27.81 Total/Avg 95,640 2,267 15,788 6.96 $260,812 $16.52 ?I We: Costs based on LSC analysis 2009 Service Options Disadvantages The major disadvantage of Option 3 is that, since this service is based on requests for regional service, a particular regional route will not operate if enough passen- gers do not schedule that trip. The result is that individuals who need to travel on a certain day may not have access to the employment, medical service, or shop- s ping that they need. Also, the cost per passenger in Option 3 is greater that in ] Options 1 and 2, causing Option 3 to have a lower benefit-to-cost ratio. The final disadvantage is that Option 3 does not provide transportation services within the City of Laurel. -Summary LSC used the peer community analysis that was developed for this study to deter- mine the ridership estimates, based on a 0.5 percent mode split on the highways between the cities of Laurel and Billings. On an average weekday, Option 3 will have a ridership of about 45 to 50 passengers. The annual ridership for Option 3 1 is estimated at about 15,788 passengers. As presented in Table IV-3, Option 3 will result in the following estimates: • $16.52 cost per passenger-trip • $260,800 annual operating cost • 6.96 passengers per hour 15,788 annual passengers i ' Option 4 - Coordination Strategies Option 4 presents the possible coordination strategies that can aid the City of Laurel with the implementation and improvement of transportation services. Option 4 includes the development of vanpool and coordination programs. The annual operating cost for the vanpool and coordination programs is estimated at $128,700; which is significantly less than the other options presented in this doc- ument. Table IV-4 presents the level of service and the overall cost of the vanpool and coordination programs. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page I V-23 b p 7 ti Table IV-4 Option 4 Level of Service - Cost Estimates Total Dail Total Annual Operating Services # of Veh. Vehicle- Miles Vehicle- Hours Vehicle- Miles Vehicle- Hours Operating Days Annual Ridership Pass. per Hour Cost Annual Cost ($) per Pass. Van pool Program Vary 2 60 15,300 255 7,140 $28,688 $4.42 - Coordination Pro ram $100,400 Total/Av 15,300 7,140 , $128,688 $18.02 Note: Costs based on LSC analysis, 2009. Service Options For the vanpool program, the City will need to purchase two or three minivans that will be used by individuals participating in the program. The focus of the van- pool program is to link employment trips between the cities of Laurel and Billings. Based on a one percent mode split on commuter trips between the cities of Laurel and Billings, the annual ridership of the vanpool program is estimated at 7,140 passengers. The estimated operating cost is $28,688 for two vanpool vehicles. Option 4 has a lower financial impact when compared to Option 3's linkage to the City of Billings. The cost per trip for Option 3's linkage to the City of Billings is about $13.14, while the cost per trip for Option 4's vanpool program is about F $4.02 (about three times less expensive). The transportation coordinator will oversee the implementation of the vanpool pro- gram and all transportation coordination efforts in the area. The estimated cost of the transportation coordinator is about $7$,000 to $100,000 including benefits r and overhead operational costs. Based on input from the SAC and public and the transportation service information gathered during this planning process, LSC has ` developed the following coordination activities. Coordinating Council A Coordinating Council is made up of various agencies and partners with a com- mon goal of coordinating transportation resources. This group is primarily made i up of agencies that need service (such as YCCOA, Crossings, Laurel Medical 1 Center, Chamber of Commerce, City Planning, etc.) and is specifically formed to accomplish a strategic goal (such as to implement a new service). The benefits of a Coordinating Council include allowing greater input from the key transportation a agencies in the region, sharing information and knowledge between members on a one-to-one basis, and increasing the integration of transit planning within the region. Joint Grant Applications Transit providers in the region should develop a single grant application to the state and/or FTA for transit funding for capital and operational needs. The grant application should be developed through the City of Laurel with YCCOA, Cross- ings, Laurel Medical Center, and others. The agencies involved in this effort will LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page IV-25 Service Options need to generate their own local match funding for their portion of the grant. The benefits of joint grant applications include. reducing the amount of time that each agency needs to spend in developing grants, increasing the local match funding for the state and/or FTA transit funding, and sharing of grant development knowl- edge between the agencies. Vehicle Sharin Vehicles can be shared between agencies that own vehicles and agencies that operate vehicles. Memoranda of Understanding or Joint Agreements are needed for this strategy to work properly. This can be done between the City of Laurel, YCCOA, Crossings, and others. The benefits of vehicle sharing include reducing the overall local capital outlay and shifting the use of capital funds to cover opera- tional costs, level of service increases, facilities, equipment, or other capital assets. Contracts for Service One agency can contract with another agency to provide needed trips occasionally on an as-needed basis or as part of scheduled service. For example, the City of Laurel can contract the demand-response service in Option 1 with the local human service programs. The estimated annual cost will be about $161,606 or less depending on the agreement. The benefits of contracts for service include increasing the amount of local match funding that can be used to pull additional state and/or FTA funding for transit services into the region, and reducing the duplication of services in the region to create an economy of scale and improve the overall transit performance level. One-Call Center and Transportation Broker A shared informational telephone line, known as a one-call center, will provide potential users with the most convenient access to information on all of the trans- portation services in the region. A transportation broker should centralize the dis- patching, record keeping, and possibly vehicle maintenance. A third-party agency can be created as a transportation broker to interface between the transportation providers and users, or the City of Laurel or one of the participating agencies can act as the transportation broker. r..gr Page N-26 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Service Options If the City acts as the one-call center and transportation broker for the partic- ipating agencies, the residents will have access to all of the transportation services within the region using the existing level of service without major operational and capital costs. The estimated annual operational cost of a one-call center and transportation broker that hires a transportation coordinator will range from $75,000 to $100,000 depending on the office rental space and the transportation coordinator's salary and benefits. LSC used $100,000 as the estimated operational cost for the one-call center, transportation broker, and transportation coordinator. The benefits of a one-call center and transportation broker include the following: Reduces the administrative costs for the participating agencies. • Acts as the first step to centralized dispatching. • Allows users to call one telephone number to obtain all the transportation information they need, thereby improving customer service. • Reduces the duplication of administrative costs based on an economy of scale. • Uses the existing transportation providers in a more effective manner. • Creates an improved transportation service with reduced costs compared to the other options. Disadvantages While the coordination efforts of Option 4 can reduce costs and the duplication of services, Option 4 does not generate a traditional general public transportation service. This can limit the overall level of service in the community. Also, there can be barriers in the level of participation from the local agencies based on funding restrictions. Option 4 relies on the participating agencies working together to create interagency agreements. Without such interagency agreements, this option will have little to no success. SUMMARY Chapter IV has provided information on various transit service options for the City i of Laurel. The options include maintaining the status quo and examining demand- response, flex-route, regional, vanpool, contract, and coordinated services. Table IV-5 presents the capital requirements and estimated capital costs for each option. Table IV-5 provides a comparison of the transit service options. The options can LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page IV-27 Service Options be implemented as an individual service, as an element of a larger transportation system, or in conjunction with each other. These options will be presented to the SAC, which will select which option(s) will best meet the region's transportation needs. r.SCII Page N-28 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 P 49 7 Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Source: LSC. 2009. Table IV-5 Draft Service Alternatives Capital - Cost Estimates # of B # of Vans Vehicles Facility Computer I Equip. Office . Software) Phone Line/ Total Ca Pita) Federal Local us. Cost Cost Cost Equipment Radio System Estimate Share Share 2 0 $130,000 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000 $170,000 $147,900 $34 000 2 0 $130,000 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000 $170,000 $147,900 , $34 000 3 0 $195,000 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000 $235,000 $204,450 , $47 000 0 3 $118,800 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000 $158,800 $138,156 , $31,760 ?n R W O r R N Table W-6 Service Options - Cost Estimates Total Dall Total Annual Operating Options # of Veh. Vehicle- Mlles Vehicle- Hours Vehicle- Mlles Vehicle- Hours Operating Days Annual Ridership Pass. per Hour Cost Annual Cost ($) per Pass. Status quo 4 36 4 9,180 1,020 255 3,000 2.9 $31,776 $10.69 O Uon 1 Local Demand-Response Service (Laurel) 6:00 am to 6:00 pm 1 108 12 27,540 3,060 255 16,950 5.5 $161,606 $9.53 O tion 2 Flex-Route Service 6:00 am to 6:00 pm 1 126 12 32,130 3,060 255 17,433 5.7 $170,213 $9.76 Option 3 Laurel to Downtown Billings Laurel to Billings Stewart Park Laurel to Red Lode 6 one-way trips per day) AM I Alidda I PM AM I Midday 1 PM Weekend AM ! Noon I PM 1 1 1 120 96 390 3 3 7 30,500 24,460 40,560 713,5 765 737 1 255 255 104 6,723 5,376 3,687 6.6 7.0 5.0 $84,867 $73,392 $102,552 $12.62 $13.66 $27.81 TotallAV 95,640 2,267 16,788 6.96 $260,612 $16.62 Option 4 Van ool Program Va 2 60 15,300 255 7,140 $28,686 $4.02 Coordination Program $100,000 Total 1 Avg 60 15,300 7,140 5128,688 $16.02 NW.- Co,4 based on LSC art.! wr , 2009. CHAPTER V Preliminary Recommendations r- INTRODUCTION LSC has prepared a set of preliminary recommendations based on the analysis of the various transit service options presented in Chapter IV. The recommendations will be reviewed by City of Laurel staff, City Council, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), and the public. Following this review and corresponding input, -- LSC will develop an implementation plan which incorporates the preferred transit service alternatives that best meet the community's needs. The implementation plan will be included in the Draft Report. SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS LSC recommends that the City of Laurel begin by developing elements of Options 1 and 4. These recommended services include demand-response service in the City of Laurel, a vanpool program, and some of the coordination elements from - Option 4. The total estimated level of service for the demand-response service is 3,060 annual revenue-hours. The estimated annual ridership for the demand- response service and vanpool program is 24,100 passengers. The recommended service will meet all of the goals and objectives set down for this planaing process. The key element that the recommended transit service plan will achieve is filling in service gaps by generating public transit service and linking the cities of Laurel and Billings, Montana. The LSC team recommends that the regional link to the City of Billings be devel- oped first with the implementation of a vanpool program. As the demand for the vanpool program increases in later years, the regional route service (as pre- sented in Option 3) can then be developed. The demand-response service can.be developed over the next five years through additional grants and the coordination of services in the city. The actual implementation plan will be developed later in the planning process. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-1 Preliminary Recommendations As an element of this recommended transit service plan, there will be a need to implement coordination strategies as identified in this document. Following are - the types of coordination strategies that can be used to improve transportation service in the study area: • Coordination Council • Joint grant applications • Vehicle sharing • One-call center • Contract service CAPITAL RECOMMENDATIONS Vehicles Based on the size and level of the recommended transit service, the City of Laurel will need to purchase three vans and two buses (including the spare vehicles) . The purchase of the vans for the vanpool program should occur first, and the purchase of the buses should occur in later years. The Federal. Transit Administration (FTA) and Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) should be the primary funding sources for the vehicle purchases. At this time, the total estimated cost of the five vehicles is $24$,800. This cost may vary depending on the level of coordination that can be developed between the City and the human service programs in the L region. The need for capital can be reduced if the human service programs and/or transportation providers that already have vehicles make agreements to operate all or a portion of the recommended transit service using their existing fleets. This can result in a larger financial savings for city residents. Equipment The City of Laurel will need to purchase office equipment (desks, computers, tele- phones, facsimile machine, copier, etc.), radios, and computer software in order to administer the operations of the recommended transit service plan. The City will also need a telephone service for the demand-response service, and computer software to allocate the drivers'time for demand-response pick-ups and drop-offs. LSC has estimated a cost for this equipment at $40,000. The equipment cost may vary depending on the level of coordination that can be achieved between the City and the human service programs in the region. LSC Page V-2 Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Preliminary Recommendations SUMMARY r The recommended transit service plan will be presented to the SAC. LSC will work with City of Laurel staff, City Council, the SAC, and the public to review the recommendations and select elements for the preferred transit service plan. The ` - preferred transit service plan and an implementation plan will be designed after F- the review process and will be presented in the Draft Report. r - The recommendations are designed to meet the goals and objectives developed with the SAC throughout the planning process. These goals and objectives include improving the efficiency of the transit system and increasing the mobility and access of the transit users to major activity centers. The focus of the recommen- dations is to meet the needs of City of Laurel residents, not only for trips within the city, but also for trips to and from the City of Billings. In the next phase of the planning process, LSC will develop an implementation plan for the vanpool program and demand-response service covering the next five to six years. This planning process may include the development of regional route service depending on the ridership demand and the level of future funding. LSC Laurel Transit Development Plan, Technical Memorandum #2 Page V-3