PROCESS TO MEET STATE LEGISLATURE REQUIREMENT ON
REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANS
COORDINATION WORKSHOP
June 14, 2005
Regional Planning and Public Transportation Study Group
PART 1:
WHAT
WHEN
WHERE
WHY
Regional Planning and Public Transportation Study Group Formed by Commissioner Hope Andrade
Organization Represented
COGs/MPOs 5
TxDOT (3 PTCs) 6
HHS/Workforce 2
Transit Providers 5
Local Governments 1
Non Profit Organization 1
PTAC 2
Border representatives 3
• Improve the delivery of transportation services
• Generate efficiencies in operation/increase levels of service
• Encourage cooperation and coordination
• Develop regional plans
H.B. No. 3588Article 13: Statewide Coordination of Public Transportation
Regional Planning and Public Transportation Study Group
MISSION: To review current public transportation planning and programming practices within metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas and to enhance service delivery, customer satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Any entity that conveys passengers, whether a governmental entity or any other entity that receives financial assistance for that conveyance from any governmental entity.
Integrating Two Public Transportation Delivery Modes
SYSTEM BASED: Focus is on developing a seamless system of options to maximize individual participation.Transportation is the goal.
CLIENT BASED: Focus is on individual person meeting health, social service or training needs. Transportation is a means to some other goal.
Revenue/Cost Table ($Millions, 2004-05 Biennium)
Cost
Revenue
Public Transportation
(System-based)
Client Transportation
(Client-based)Total
Fund 6 $56.6 $77.5 $134.1
Federal Transportation
55.3 0 55.3
Federal Other 0 88.6 88.6
$111.9 $166.1 $278
COG / Rural Transit Provider Boundaries
Examples of Coordination
Johnson County – City-County system
• Expanded transit service from one city to entire county
• Each city financially contributes based on number of residents
• Leveraged TxDOT/MPO funds
Houston – One Stop Shop
• Pilot program funded by TxDOT & HGAC
• Customers contact ONE agency for transportation needs; then choose from private, nonprofit or public providers
Monthly Transit Pass vs. Taxi Vouchers
Other States: North Carolina, Maryland, Florida
• Coordinate transportation planning through a lead agency
Two Year Schedule
Phase 1 Committee Recommendations/ Commission Direction
1/05 – 5/05
Phase 2 Workshop (6/14/05)/ Work Plan Development
6/05 – 9/05
Phase 3 Workshop on “Sharing Approaches”
10/05
Phase 4 Plan Development 10/05 - 9/06
Phase 5 Commission Approval/ Policy Direction
9/06 - 1/07
Commission Action
1. Approve process and schedule to meet legislative
requirements
2. Endorse COG boundaries with lead agency determined in
each region
3. Endorse process mirrored after TMMP approach with
coinciding 9/06 deadline
4. Endorse June 14, 2005 kickoff conference
5. Pursue additional funding for FY 2005-06 planning activities
6. Consider plan/policy/legislative recommendations in Fall 2006
PART 2:
WHO
HOW
HOW MUCH
WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!
HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL FUNDING NECESSARY?
Five P’s and Three E’s
Planning
Programming
Policies
Projects
Partnerships
Eng
inee
ring
Educ
atio
n
Enfo
rcem
ent
KEEP TRACK OF:
METHODOLOGY
INNOVATION FROM 5P’S AND 3E’S
CONSTRAINTS (THESE CAN BE FIXED)
REGIONAL AND TEXAS FOCUS
NEED COST ESTIMATE FOR
10/1/05 – 9/30/06
NEXT STEPS:
MEET BY REGION
DISCUSSION AFTER LUNCH