HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-05
Kenneth C. Boyd
Rivanna
COUNTYOFALBE~E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Lindsay G. Domer, Jr.
Scottsville
David L. Slutzky
Rio
Ann H. Mallek
White Hal1
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 28, 2008
Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd
Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Ms. Ann H. Mallek
Mr. Dennis S. Rooker
Mr. David Slutzky
Ms. Sally H. Thomas
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. Larry W. Davis
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is to notify you that the Chairman, Mr. Boyd, has called a special meeting of
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the purpose of meeting with staff from
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and Charlottesville City Council to
discuss a Regional Transit Authority. The meeting is called for Tuesday, August 5,
2008, at 10:00 a.m., at the Charlottesville Community Design Center (Old Visitors
Center), located at 100 5th Street, NE, 2nd Floor, Charlottesville, Virginia.
No matter not specified in this notice shall be considered at this meeting unless
all members are present or a waiver for the required notice is signed by all members in
advance of the meeting.
~
Ella W. Jordan, Clerk
ewj
-
tj pdc.org
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.org email
DRAFT Agenda
Joint City/County Work Session on Regional Transit Authority
Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 10:00 am-l:00 pm
City Space, Charlottesville Community Design Center
100 Fifth St. NE, 2nd Floor, Charlottesville, Virginia.
I.
Welcome, Work Session Goals, and Expected Outcomes
(15 minutes total)
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Review of Special Legislative Session and RTA Study Activity Since the February 2008 Work Session
3. Work Session Goal: To reach consensus on the immediate next steps that City, County and TJPDC staff should take to
prepare for upcoming 2009 Session of the General Assembly.
4. Expected Outcomes: During this work session, decision makers are expected to reach consensus on how to proceed with
finalizing a desired governance structure and preferred tax and revenue option, so that draft legislation can be developed.
Decision makers will also be asked to review and comment on the draft implementation plan for a RTA.
II.
Discuss Draft Final RT A Study Reports, and Structure, Governance, and Revenue Options
Comments and questions by decision makers are expected and encouraged at any time during this segment.
11 :30-11:45 Break, pick up lunch, continue
(1 hr 45 mins total)
1. Summer 2008 Special Legislative Session Overview: Our legislative liaison to provide an overview.
2. Highlights of Remaining RTA Study Reports: The consultant will review the recommendations from several of the key
remaining RTA Study reports that will assist decision makers in the development of the RTA. Examples include a
Staffing Plan, Service Standards, and Service and Cost Allocation Plans.
3. Review of Implementation Plan and Schedule: The consultant will review the plan and schedule iflegislation is
approved during the 2009 General Assembly session.
4. Structure and Governance: At the February 2008 joint work session, decision makers unanimously decided to complete
the study and pursue a Regional Transit Authority, in lieu of other forms of governance, as its final recommendation.
Decision makers must now employ an effective working group to decide what the exact structure and governance for the
RTA will be, in order to specify that structure in the enabling legislation.
5. Revenue / Taxing Options: At the February 2008 joint work session, decision makers unanimously agreed that in order
to provide transit services at the level expected of aRT A, the enabling legislation must contain a taxing and revenue
authority. Decision makers must now employ an effective working group to decide what tax and fee revenue
opportunities this region should pursue, in order to specify them in the enabling legislation.
III.
Public Comment Period: each person will be allowed to speak for 1 minute
(approximately 20 minutes total)
IV.
Identify Next Steps:
(y, hour total)
1. Overview of Outstanding Issues and Decisions: Even if authority to establish a Regional Transit Authority is granted in
2009, many details must still be resolved for the Authority to function and sustain services. A brief overview will be
provided.
2. Between now and the RTA: A brief discussion of how the City and the County should continue to develop funding and
operations strategies to build and strengthen a robust regional transit service.
V.
Work session wrap up
(5 minutes)
As the overall regional transit discussion moves forward, there will be several additional opportunities during which public input and
involvement will be actively solicited.
r · 1
. l({//asse lIallgell Brust/ill. file.
Charlottesville - Albemarle
Regional Transit Authority
Draft Final Report
June 30, 2008
Submitted by:
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700
Vienna, VA 22182
Submitted to:
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
401 East Water Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
With Support from:
Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey
Nelson/Nygaard
J
Final Report
June 2008
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 1
2 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3
3 Area Development......................................................................................................... 5
4 Range of Options Studied ............................................ .................................... ........... 10
4.1 Baseline..............................................................................................,.,.,.......... 10
4.2 Option 1 ..........................,.,.......,...........................,............................................. 10
4.3 Option 2....................................,.,...,.,................................................................. 10
4.4 Option 3..............,.,.,...........................................,..........................................,.... 11
4.5 Option 4....................................,.................................,.,....,.,.............................. 11
4.6 Option 4a..,..........................................,.,....................,........,........,..................... 12
5 Institutional and Fundi ng Options.......................... .................................................... 13
5.1 Regional Transit Authority...............,.,.................................,.............................. 13
5.1.1 Composition and Governance..............................,.,....,......................... 14
5.1.2 Powers and Functions........................,.................................................. 15
5.1.3 Creation....................,...........................,................................................ 17
5.1.4 Taxing and Revenue Authority.............................................................. 17
5.1.5 Expenditure/Funding Obligations ........,..........................,.,.................... 18
5.1.6 Withdrawal ,.........................,................................................................. 18
5,1.7 Advantages and Disadvantages............................................................ 18
5.2 Funding Sources....................,.,.........................,.....................................,.....,... 19
6 Policy and Comm un ity Input ................................. ..................................................... 21
7 Recommended Service Plan....................................................................................... 23
8 Transit Authority and Fu ndi ng.................................................................................... 24
8.1 Cost Allocations Methods Used by Other Transit Agencies ............................... 24
8.2 Impact of Different Methods for Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA ......................... 26
8.3 Implications for a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA ............................................... 28
9 Implementation Schedu Ie ........................................................................................... 31
9.1 Implementation Issues......................................................,...........................,.... 31
9.2 Implementation Schedule.................,........................,...,.................................... 33
11 Table of Contents
,
Final Report
June 2008
List of Tables
Table No.
Description
Page
Table 4-1: Summary of Service Options................................................................................................................. 12
Table 5-1: H3202 Funding Authorizations...............................................................................................................17
Table 5-2: Projected Annual Revenue (2009)........................................................................................................ 20
Table 6-1: Draft Agenda - Joint City County Work Session, February 11, 2008................................................... 22
Table 8-1: Cost Allocation Methodologies.............................................................................................................. 26
111 Table of Contents
Final Report
June 2008
List of Figures
Figure No.
Description
Page
Figure 3-1: Transit-Oriented Index with Baseline CTS Route (FY 2009) .................................................................. 8
Figure 3-2: Transit Corridors.......... .................................. .......................... ...................... ..................... ............. ....... 9
Figure 9-1: Possible Transition Schedule (2008) .................................................................................................... 34
Figure 9 2: Possible Transition Schedule (2009) .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9 3: Possible Transition Schedule (2010 and continuing)............................................................................ 36
1v Table of Contents
Final Report
June 2008
v Appendices
Final Report
June 2008
1 Executive Summary
Formation of a regional transit authority is intended to promote the development of
regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving
on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
Section 3 describes an index used to identify those areas that are most amenable to
transit based on eight factors that are known to increase transit use. The index is used to
estimate the level of transit service that is appropriate for seven corridors in the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
Section 4 evaluates five transit service expansion options compared to a baseline service
option, based on operating costs, capital costs, and the level and quality of the transit
services. Each option envisions a substantial increase in transit service in Albemarle
County, and three envision high-speed and high-frequency transit services on Route 29
North and West Main Street.
Section 5 discusses the characteristics that a regional transit authority (RTA) might be
granted by the Virginia Legislature, based on the powers recendy granted to the
Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, and
Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. It also discusses existing and future funding
sources for operating a RTA.
Section 6 discusses policy and community input in developing this report.
Section 7 discusses the recommended service plan that was selected by the MPO Policy
Board, and confirmed in a joint meeting of the City Council and the County Board of
Supervisors. This service is focused on a bus rapid transit (BRT) route operating along
the Route 29 /West Main Street corridor, between the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
and the Downtown Transit Station. Additional new routes provide a direct Pantops-
Holeymead service, connect Biscuit Run to the UVa grounds, and provide circulators in
the areas of Albemarle County designated for more urban development. The frequency
of service on many city routes is increased. These actions will enhance the attractiveness
of transit by significandy improving the reliability of service, reducing travel time, and
improving transfers to other routes.
Section 8 identifies several potential methods for allocation costs between the members
of the RTA and the implications of each method. Common measures include
population, passengers, service hours, service miles, and assignment of routes to specific
entities (the existing cost allocation method for CTS). While some jurisdictions select a
simple approach because of the benefits of a simpler, transparent, and more
straightforward approach, others select complex methods to address specific issues of
individual partners.
I
Executive Summary
Final Report
June 2008
Section 9 discusses an implementation schedule for the RTA as well as five key issues
that the Charlottesville-Albemarle area must resolve prior to seeking legislation to
establish an RTA. These include:
. Determination of desired structure and powers
. Obtaining legislative authority
. Establishing Authority by-laws and procedures
. Official concurrence by participating jurisdictions
. Transfer of staff and equipment
2
Executive Summary
Final Report
June 2008
2 Introduction
The Charlottesville-Albemarle County metropolitan area is served by three public transit
operations - Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS),Jefferson Area United Transit
GAUNT), and the University Transit System (UTS). Each of these systems was originally
developed as an independent entity to serve a specific market - CTS to primarily serve
the residents of the city of Charlottesville; JAUNT to serve rural areas outside of the city
in Albemarle County and neighboring areas; and UTS to service students, staff, and
faculty traveling to and from locations on the UVa Grounds and nearby commercial and
residential areas. Over the years, while each agency has retained its original role and
primary focus, the agencies have developed symbiotic relationships supporting and
complementing each other. CTS, with fmancial support from the University, operates
the FREE trolley that not only connects the Grounds to downtown Charlottesville, but
also plays a role in intra-campus movements. CTS also provides bus service to portions
of Albemarle County, with financial support by the County. JAUNT provides paratransit
service that meets ADA requirements for the CTS service area. UTS now provides
service to the general public and no longer requires proof of affiliation with the
University by those who wish to ride its buses.
There have been many suggestions that there be closer ties among the transit agencies
and several studies of the feasibility of and potential benefits from a merger of CTA and
UTS. The growth in Albemarle County in recent years, and the adoption of plans that
would seek to concentrate much of Albemarle County's future growth in areas closer to
urban services, has created the impetus for consideration of alternative organizational
structures for transit in the metropolitan area:
. Structures that could provide an expanded base for coordinated planning of land
development with public transit services;
. Structures that could include a broader range of interests in transit planning
activities;
. Structures that could provide an accepted basis for funding support for expansion of
public transit services.
The agreement in 2006 between several diverse entities in the Williamsburg area - James
City County, the City of Williamsburg, the College of William and Mary, and Colonial
Williamsburg - to form a transit authority has spurred renewed interest in several other
communities in Virginia to explore the benefits of an authority or similar structure to
plan, fund, and/ or operate public transit services. This study:
. Defmes a possible transit future for the Charlottesville-Albemarle County area;
3
Introduction
Final Report June 2008
. Defines the various ways in which the city, the county, the University and other
institutions (e.g. Monticello) could organize to , fund, manage and coordinate
services;
. Identifies the benefits that could be achieved and the obligations of the partners; and
. Makes specific recommendations on how to proceed.
4
Introduction
Final Report
June 2008
3 Area Development
To understand the nature of transit services that might be provided by a regional entity,
areas and corridors are identified as a precursor to route planning. These areas and
corridors currendy offer characteristics or support policy initiatives that will lead to
development which is amenable to transit service or could be in the future. Two types of
development incorporate specific strategies to support alternative means of
transportation other than single occupant vehicles. While transit-oriented development
(TOD) is generally planned near an existing transit line, transit-ready development
(TRD) is generally planned for future transit services. The objective is to create a transit-
oriented development prior to development rather than retrofitting an area after
development has occurred, which is often cosdy and controversial. The proposed Biscuit
Run development is a prime example of a potential transit-ready development. In
general, the following characteristics can be observed in transit-ready development:
. Compact, Connected Street Network
. Mixed Land Uses
. Functional Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks
. "Park-Once" Business Districts
. Balanced and Integrated Customer Delivery System
. Transit Facilities Integrated into Neighborhoods
Many factors are known to increase transit use. To identify those areas that are most
amenable to transit, an index was developed that evaluates each Transportation Analysis
Zone's (TAZ)l ability to support transit. The index is composed of both quantitative
and qualitative measures. Quantitative measures include: 1) residential density, 2)
employment density, 3) street connectivity, 4) income, 5) projected traffic congestion,
and 6) residential concentration of employees of the University of Virginia (UV a).
Qualitative measures include: 1) parking availability and 2) area plans and development
policies articulated in the comprehensive plans for Albemarle County and City of
Charlottesville. These factors are intended to determine how transit-oriented an area is,
as places with a greater density of residents and employees, land use policies which
encourage higher density, areas with connected streets, less parking availability, lower
incomes, and high amounts of congestion are generally considered more transit-oriented
than areas lacking some of the above characteristics.
In general, the eight factors in the transit potential index are related to transit ridership
for the following reasons:
. Higher residential densities are more transit supportive since transit resources can
serve a greater portion of the population, resulting in more cost-effective service.
1 A TAZ is an area designated by transportation officials for tabulating traffic-related data.
5
Area Development
Final Report June 2008
. As with residential densities, higher employment densities are more transit
supportive since transit resources can serve a greater portion of the population,
resulting in more cost-effective service.
. Under certain circumstances congestion can support transit by encouraging people
to forgo travel by automobile for transit. While transit is rarely as fast as travel by
automobile, certain treatments such as exclusive transit lanes and signal priority
technology can improve the travel time of transit relative to the automobile.
. Limited parking availability, or restrictions on parking (time limits, fees, permit
restrictions) can encourage the use of transit by increasing the burden of travel by
automobile.
. Connectivity refers to the directness of the roadway network and the number of
potential routes to travel between two points. Street patterns with a high level of
connectivity are considered to be supportive of public transportation because they
provide safe, direct, and convenient routes for walking to transit stops. In addition,
greater connectivity increases the "catchment" area of a transit stop - that is the area
within a short walk to the transit stop, typically considered to be between a % and Yz
miles. Larger "catchment" areas increase the number of potential transit riders.
. Persons with lower incomes are more likely to use transit since it is less expensive
than owning and maintaining an automobile.
. Transit-oriented plans and development policies can encourage transit use by
limiting the barriers to successful transit implementation and encouraging dense
development with high connectivity, limited parking, and a pedestrian-oriented
environment.
. The residential concentration of university employees is a measure unique to
areas where significant employment is focused on a university. UVa employees are
more likely to ride transit since the University is served by high-quality and high-
frequency transit service. Additionally, UV a has a high employment density, is
pedestrian-oriented, and has limited parking availability.
Figure shows the transit potential index in 2010. In general, those TAZs that are
currently most supportive of transit are located in and around Downtown Charlottesville
and the University of Virginia. There is a moderate level of support for transit along
Route 29 North and Route 250 headed toward the Pantops Shopping Center. Most areas
with high or moderate/high transit support ratings already have transit service, with the
exception of the Madison Park area at the intersection of Old Ivy Road and Route 250
Bypass. The transit potential index was used to rate the potential for transit on the
following seven corridors (illustrated in Figure ):
. West Main St/Market St
. Route 29 North
. High St/Route 250 East
. Avon St/Route 20
. Ridge St/Old Lynchburg Rd
. Route 250 West
. Rio Road East
6
Area Development
. ltl1l{{sse llmzp,ell Brust/ill. hze.
Charlottesville - Albemarle
Regional Transit Authority
Draft Final Report
June 30, 2008
Submitted by:
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700
Vienna, VA 22182
Submitted to:
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
401 East Water Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
With Support from:
Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey
Nelson/Nygaard
Final Report
June 2008
Table of Contents
.1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 1
2 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3
3 Area Development......................................................................................................... 5
4 Range of Options Studied ........................................................................................... 10
4.1 Baseline............................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Option 1.............................................................................................................. 10
4.3 Option 2.............................................................................................................. 10
4.4 Option 3.............................................................................................................. 11
4.5 Option 4.............................................................................................................. 11
4.6 Option 4a............................................................................................................ 12
5 I nstitutional and Fu nding Options..... .................. ....................... .............. .................. 13
5.1 Regional Transit Authority .................................................................................. 13
5.1.1 Composition and Governance............................................................... 14
5.1.2 Powers and Functions........................................................................... 15
5.1.3 Creation................................................................................................. 17
5.1.4 Taxing and Revenue Authority.............................................................. 17
5.1.5 Expenditure/Funding Obligations.......................................................... 18
5.1.6 Withdrawal ............................................................................................ 18
5.1.7 Advantages and Disadvantages.......,.................................................... 18
5.2 Funding Sources................................................................................................ 19
6 Policy and Community Input.... .............................. ................................ ............. ....... 21
7 Recommended Service Plan....................................................................................... 23
8 Transit Authority and Fund i ng.................................................................................... 24
8.1 Cost Allocations Methods Used by Other Transit Agencies ............................... 24
8.2 Impact of Different Methods for Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA ......................... 26
8.3 Implications for a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA ............................................... 28
9 Implementation Schedu Ie ........................................................................................... 31
9.1 Implementation Issues....................................................................................... 31
9.2 Implementation Schedule................................................................................... 33
11 Table of Contents
Final Report
June 2008
List of Tables
Table No.
Description
Page
Table 4-1: Summary of Service Options................................................................................................................. 12
Table 5-1: H3202 Funding Authorizations...............................................................................................................17
Table 5-2: Projected Annual Revenue (2009)........................................................................................................ 20
Table 6-1: Draft Agenda - Joint City County Work Session, February 11,2008...................................................22
Table 8-1: Cost Allocation Methodologies.............................................................................................................. 26
111 Table of Contents
Final Report
June 2008
List of Figures
Figure No.
Description
Page
Figure 3-1: Transit-Oriented Index with Baseline CTS Route (FY 2009)..................................................................8
Figure 3-2: Transit Corridors.. .................... .......... ............................ ............. ......................................... ...... ............. 9
Figure 9-1: Possible Transition Schedule (2008) .................................................................................................... 34
Figure 9 2: Possible Transition Schedule (2009) .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9 3: Possible Transition Schedule (2010 and continuing)............................................................................ 36
lv Table of Contents
Final Report
June 2008
v Appendices
Final Report
June 2008
1 Executive Summary
Formation of a regional transit authority is intended to promote the development of
regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving
on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
Section 3 describes an index used to identify those areas that are most amenable to
transit based on eight factors that are known to increase transit use. The index is used to
estimate the level of transit service that is appropriate for seven corridors in the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
Section 4 evaluates five transit service expansion options compared to a baseline service
option, based on operating costs, capital costs, and the level and quality of the transit
services. Each option envisions a substantial increase in transit service in Albemarle
County, and three envision high-speed and high-frequency transit services on Route 29
North and West Main Street.
Section 5 discusses the characteristics that a regional transit authority (RTA) might be
granted by the Virginia Legislature, based on the powers recendy granted to the
Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, and
Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. It also discusses existing and future funding
sources for operating a RTA.
Section 6 discusses policy and community input in developing this report.
Section 7 discusses the recommended service plan that was selected by the MPO Policy
Board, and confirmed in a joint meeting of the City Council and the County Board of
Supervisors. This service is focused on a bus rapid transit (BRT) route operating along
the Route 29 /West Main Street corridor, between the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
and the Downtown Transit Station. Additional new routes provide a direct Pantops-
Holeymead service, connect Biscuit Run to the UVa grounds, and provide circulators in
the areas of Albemarle County designated for more urban development. The frequency
of service on many city routes is increased. These actions will enhance the attractiveness
of transit by significandy improving the reliability of service, reducing travel time, and
improving transfers to other routes.
Section 8 identifies several potential methods for allocation costs between the members
of the RTA and the implications of each method. Common measures include
population, passengers, service hours, service miles, and assignment of routes to specific
entities (the existing cost allocation method for CTS). While some jurisdictions select a
simple approach because of the benefits of a simpler, transparent, and more
straightforward approach, others select complex methods to address specific issues of
individual partners.
I
Executive Summary
Final Report
June 2008
Section 9 discusses an implementation schedule for the RTA as well as five key issues
that the Charlottesville-Albemarle area must resolve prior to seeking legislation to
establish an RTA. These include:
. Determination of desired structure and powers
. Obtaining legislative authority
. Establishing Authority by-laws and procedures
. Official concurrence by participating jurisdictions
. Transfer of staff and equipment
2
Executive Summary
Final Report
June 2008
2 Introduction
The Charlottesville-Albemarle County metropolitan area is served by three public transit
operations - Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), Jefferson Area United Transit
GAUNT), and the University Transit System CUTS). Each of these systems was originally
developed as an independent entity to serve a specific market - CTS to primarily serve
the residents of the city of Charlottesville; JAUNT to serve rural areas outside of the city
in Albemarle County and neighboring areas; and UTS to service students, staff, and
faculty traveling to and from locations on the UVa Grounds and nearby commercial and
residential areas. Over the years, while each agency has retained its original role and
primary focus, the agencies have developed symbiotic relationships supporting and
complementing each other. CTS, with financial support from the University, operates
the FREE trolley that not only connects the Grounds to downtown Charlottesville, but
also plays a role in intra-campus movements. CTS also provides bus service to portions
of Albemarle County, with fmancial support by the County. JAUNT provides paratransit
service that meets ADA requirements for the CTS service area. UTS now provides
service to the general public and no longer requires proof of affiliation with the
University by those who wish to ride its buses.
There have been many suggestions that there be closer ties among the transit agencies
and several studies of the feasibility of and potential benefits from a merger of CTA and
UTS. The growth in Albemarle County in recent years, and the adoption of plans that
would seek to concentrate much of Albemarle County's future growth in areas closer to
urban services, has created the impetus for consideration of alternative organizational
structures for transit in the metropolitan area:
. Structures that could provide an expanded base for coordinated planning of land
development with public transit services;
. Structures that could include a broader range of interests in transit planning
activities;
. Structures that could provide an accepted basis for funding support for expansion of
public transit services.
The agreement in 2006 between several diverse entities in the Williamsburg area - James
City County, the City of Williamsburg, the College of William and Mary, and Colonial
Williamsburg - to form a transit authority has spurred renewed interest in several other
communities in Virginia to explore the benefits of an authority or similar structure to
plan, fund, and/or operate public transit services. This study:
. Defmes a possible transit future for the Charlottesville-Albemarle County area;
3
Introduction
Final Report June 2008
. DefInes the various ways in which the city, the county, the University and other
institutions (e.g. Monticello) could organize to , fund, manage and coordinate
servIces;
. IdentifIes the benefIts that could be achieved and the obligations of the partners; and
. Makes specifIc recommendations on how to proceed.
4
Introduction
Final Report
June 2008
3 Area Development
To understand the nature of transit services that might be provided by a regional entity,
areas and corridors are identified as a precursor to route planning. These areas and
corridors currently offer characteristics or support policy initiatives that will lead to
development which is amenable to transit service or could be in the future. Two types of
development incorporate specific strategies to support alternative means of
transportation other than single occupant vehicles. While transit-oriented development
(TOD) is generally planned near an existing transit line, transit-ready development
(TRD) is generally planned for future transit services. The objective is to create a transit-
oriented development prior to development rather than retrofitting an area after
development has occurred, which is often costly and controversial. The proposed Biscuit
Run development is a prime example of a potential transit-ready development. In
general, the following characteristics can be observed in transit-ready development:
. Compact, Connected Street Network
. Mixed Land Uses
. Functional Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks
. "Park-Once" Business Districts
. Balanced and Integrated Customer Delivery System
. Transit Facilities Integrated into Neighborhoods
Many factors are known to increase transit use. To identify those areas that are most
amenable to transit, an index was developed that evaluates each Transportation Analysis
Zone's (TAZ)l ability to support transit. The index is composed of both quantitative
and qualitative measures. Quantitative measures include: 1) residential density, 2)
employment density, 3) street connectivity, 4) income, 5) projected traffic congestion,
and 6) residential concentration of employees of the University of Virginia (UVa).
Qualitative measures include: 1) parking availability and 2) area plans and development
policies articulated in the comprehensive plans for Albemarle County and City of
Charlottesville. These factors are intended to determine how transit-oriented an area is,
as places with a greater density of residents and employees, land use policies which
encourage higher density, areas with connected streets, less parking availability, lower
incomes, and high amounts of congestion are generally considered more transit-oriented
than areas lacking some of the above characteristics.
In general, the eight factors in the transit potential index are related to transit ridership
for the following reasons:
. Higher residential densities are more transit supportive since transit resources can
serve a greater portion of the population, resulting in more cost-effective service.
1 A TAl is an area designated by transportation officials for tabulating traffic-related data.
5
Area Development
Final Report June 2008
. As with residential densities, higher employment densities are more transit
supportive since transit resources can serve a greater portion of the population,
resulting in more cost-effective service.
. Under certain circumstances congestion can support transit by encouraging people
to forgo travel by automobile for transit. While transit is rarely as fast as travel by
automobile, certain treatments such as exclusive transit lanes and signal priority
technology can improve the travel time of transit relative to the automobile.
. Limited parking availability, or restrictions on parking (time limits, fees, permit
restrictions) can encourage the use of transit by increasing the burden of travel by
automobile.
. Connectivity refers to the directness of the roadway network and the number of
potential routes to travel between two points. Street patterns with a high level of
connectivity are considered to be supportive of public transportation because they
provide safe, direct, and convenient routes for walking to transit stops. In addition,
greater connectivity increases the "catchment" area of a transit stop - that is the area
within a short walk to the transit stop, typically considered to be between a % and Yz
miles. Larger "catchment" areas increase the number of potential transit riders.
. Persons with lower incomes are more likely to use transit since it is less expensive
than owning and maintaining an automobile.
. Transit-oriented plans and development policies can encourage transit use by
limiting the barriers to successful transit implementation and encouraging dense
development with high connectivity, limited parking, and a pedestrian-oriented
environment.
. The residential concentration of university employees is a measure unique to
areas where significant employment is focused on a university. UVa employees are
more likely to ride transit since the University is served by high-quality and high-
frequency transit service. Additionally, UV a has a high employment density, is
pedestrian-oriented, and has limited parking availability.
Figure shows the transit potential index in 2010. In general, those TAZs that are
currently most supportive of transit are located in and around Downtown Charlottesville
and the University of Virginia. There is a moderate level of support for transit along
Route 29 North and Route 250 headed toward the Pantops Shopping Center. Most areas
with high or moderate/high transit support ratings already have transit service, with the
exception of the Madison Park area at the intersection of Old Ivy Road and Route 250
Bypass. The transit potential index was used to rate the potential for transit on the
following seven corridors (illustrated in Figure ):
. West Main St/Market St
. Route 29 North
. High St/Route 250 East
. Avon St/Route 20
. Ridge St/ Old Lynchburg Rd
. Route 250 West
. Rio Road East
6
Area Development
Final Report
June 2008
The ratings ranged from low to high and are associated with a service frequency level
and headway. For example, areas with a "High" transit potential rating support "Very
Frequent" service with headways less than 15 minutes. Areas with a "Low" transit
potential rating support only "Commuter" services during peak periods (see Table 3-1)..
Table 3-1: Transit Service Frequency
Transit Potential Rating
High
Moderate High
Moderate
Low Moderate
Low
Service Frequency
Very Frequent
Frequent
Moderate
Infrequent
Commuter
Headway
< 15-minute head ways
15-minute
30-minute
60-minute or demand-response
Peak Period
The index developed for this analysis provides an estimation of transit supportability for
each TAZ in the study area. It should be noted that an entire corridor does not need to
be transit supportive, as long as a transit supportive "anchor" is located at the terminal
points, such as Rivanna, Crozet, or Hollymead. Thus, the transit corridors were
developed to include the connection of non-contiguous pockets of transit supportive
areas. This frequency analysis is not defInitive, but does give an idea of the level of
transit service the corridor could support.
Table 3-2: Corridor Analysis
Table 3-2 shows the level of transit service that was recommended for each corridor.
Corridor
West Main Street/Market Street
Route 29 North
High Street/Route 250 East
Avon Street/Route 20
Ridge Street/Old Lynchburg Road
Route 250 West
Rio Road East
Area
Entire Corridor
UVa to Wal-Mart
Hollymead area
Piney Mountain area
High Street
Pantops
Village of Rivanna
Entire Corridor
Downtown Mall to Mill Creek
Biscuit Run
Entire Corridor
Entire Corridor
Supported Transit Service Frequency
Very Frequent
Frequent
Moderate
Infrequent
Moderate
Moderate
Infrequent
Moderate
Infrequent
Moderate
Commuter
Moderate
An in-depth discussion of area development is provided in Appendix C
7
Area Development
00
o
o
N
I])
=
;:j
.....,
.... 0
Q) .- ~ Q)J:
_ CI) "'C .... Q) Q)
=Q)t:~ 1_ .... ....
>-C'U.... 0"- t: ::::J
CI)~~(/) o ~ 1-
Q)C'UI- - 0
....E-~ c.><Q) ~
OQ)C'U~ E Q) 0
-.ot:O 0
~ - 0 O-C~
C'U <( .- .!: ::::J
.!: C') .... 005 m
() Q)~
0:::<(
...-.
0'\
o
o
N
~
--
il)
....
:::
o
~
CJ)
f-t
U
il)
=:
....
-
il)
00
~
~
..=
....
.~
x
il)
~
c
c::
::J
o
U
~
~
ctl
e
Q)
:S
q:
.'
,
I" ..
..
,.. ,
, ,..,
" .
I"
'.
. I
(':' Cl
Cll c:
"tJ ~
lJ) c: l'\'I
>. ~ >< a:
Cll 0 (':' Q) Q) .c
~ m " - - OJ
Cll l'\'I Cll :f
lJ) lJ) "tJ Cll >. "tJ c: ~ I..
Q) Cll "E Q) --
~ ~ e: c: Q) Q)
I.. "S 0 ~ ~ Q) Q) "tJ - -
Cll 0::: <( 0 Cll Cll
E 0 0 0 ;!: ... ~ I.. I..
0::: I.. e: (J m fA 0 -- Q) Q)
"tJ 0 Cll -- N a.. ~ ~ "tJ "tJ .c
e: lJ) 'm ..c >. 0 0 0 .2>
Cll ~ I.. :t:: ~ Q, ... 0 0 ~ ~ I
...J m ~ :J (J 'iij ...J ...J
I I I 0= E c: 11011
. I 0 e
I U ~
c
c::
::J
o
U
~
~
ctl
e
Q)
:S
q:
ctl
C::c
c:: c::
~ ::J
::J 0
u:U
(;
'j;
'"
.c:
~
0;
>
~
<I>
~
~
'"
,g
~
"
'"
<I>
(;j
o
:2
0-
'"
~
<I>
Cl
..
,
..
#
,I
I
,
"
"
..
~
<I>
c
~
'"
'ij)
'"
ro
c
<(
c
,2
iij
t::
~
c
ID~
~:
..
..
....
..
..
..
..
"
~
... ,
,
I'
,
.
,
,
- ,,'
"
,I
I
,
l
,;
... .
......_-'....
'"
~
~
NI
~~
Q) f/) "C
= C:J
'> ~ ~ :;..
f/) ... L- VI
Q) C'O r- ~
t: E (ij ._
o Q) C ...
-.cOO
... - ,..
C'O <( .- :=
.s::. C) :J
U ~<(
o
.......
.- 0
0-0
C._
ns ...
... ...
1-0
U
"0
(r
Cl
(j) :;
ro .0
Qj W ~
~ -t 0 g
"0 ro ~ ~ ~ w ~
c ~ 22"0 W ~ t
~ 5 ....:J:J 6 ro ~ ~
ro ell CIlOo_wo
~ ~ c (r (r "0 "0 ~ m
.. "0 ro..... .- _ _ rv ro N N
.. ro ~ c ro........ ~ 0 ~
-t 0 ~ :J ~ ~ CIl CIl ~ (r 2 ....
ro (r 8 ~ .... c ~ Cl 0 5 5
EO~-O~OCl~O::(r(r
-g'ro.o'~"~~I(r II
~ I ~DhlIDI~
.. _.9..
.. -\ \
."
\
I
"
/ '.."
\
I '"
.. I
,
\
I
\
'''... ,
\
,
00
o
o
N
(l)
t::
:l
......,
,J
:>
(j)
"
"
"
"
I
I
\
"
"
\ ..
\-
c
c::
~
o
U
Q)
1::
ca
E
Q)
:S
c:c
~c
c:: c::-
ca ~
:::.. 00>-
~-, \
7 ~ii:'V
:'I
<J
1,
U,],
~
c
c::
~
o
U
Q)
1::
ca
E
Q)
:S
c:c
-
I
.. ..
I
"
,"'1-
"', I.,
h
".
~ ,
,
\
--
... I'
, '..r"
, ,
r
\1.
..
...
....... '"
)-
T
..
1
...
, \
.....
...
'----'... I
,,~,-' A ....
...
<-
I
.. .
..
'l.
c
c::C-',
5~'
U'
Q)
~
r/I
~\
~
l{)1
Final Report
June 2008
4 Range of Options Studied
Five transit enhancement options were developed for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area,
each providing substantially more service in Albemarle County. To put these concepts
into context, they are compared against a Baseline, which represents service operating in
fall 2007. These options are summarized in Table 4-1 and are described in greater detail
and illustrated in Appendix D and Appendix D1.
4.1 Baseline
The Baseline represents the service that CTS proposes to operate beginning in fall 2007.
The annual operating cost is estimated to be approximately $5.9 million in FY 2010. In
the Baseline nearly 79.3 percent of service is funded by Charlottesville and 20.7 percent
of service is funded by Albemarle County. The Baseline provides over 85,000 vehicle
revenue-hours per year.
4.2 Option 1
Option 1 represents a significant expansion of traditional fixed-route service in
Albemarle County and limited service expansion in Charlottesville. All Baseline CTS
routes are a part of Option 1. This option would add five new local routes and modify
three existing routes.
Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $8.8 million in FY 2010,
which is a 48.9 percent increase over the Baseline. This option requires nine additional
30-ft buses, three additional 35-ft buses, and over 220 additional bus stops, with a total
cost of between $4.6 million and $10.3 million. In Option 1, 56.6 percent of revenue-
hours serve Charlottesville and 43.4 percent of revenue-hours serve Albemarle County.
Option 1 would provide nearly 127,000 vehicle revenue-hours per year.
4.3 Option 2
As with Option 1, Option 2 represents a significant expansion of traditional fixed-route
service in Albemarle County and some service expansion in areas of Charlottesville. All
Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 2. All of the local routes described in Option 1
would be included as well as two additional local routes, two commuter routes and the
development of a second transit hub at Barracks Road Shopping Center.
Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $9.4 million in FY 2010.
This option requires 11 additional30-ft buses, three additional 35-ft buses and over
220 additional bus stops, costing between $6.4 million and $13.3 million. In Option 2,
52.4 percent of revenue-hours serve Charlottesville and 47.6 percent of revenue-hours
10 Range of Options Studied
Final Report
June 2008
serve Albemarle County. Option 2 would provide nearly 137,000 vehicle revenue-hours
per year.
4.4 Option 3
Option 3 introduces a high frequency transit service along the Route 29 North and West
Main Street/Market St corridors as a means of attracting "choice riders" - people who
ride transit out of preference, not because they lack alternatives. Recommendations that
succeed in attracting choice riders to transit must provide a level of service competitive
with travel by automobile. This includes considering service reliability, travel time, modal
transfers, and fmancial cost.
Option 3 largely aims to attract "choice riders" by reducing travel time on the Route 29
and West Main Street corridors. Trips originate at the Downtown Transit Station, with
every other trip traveling to Fashion Square Mall and the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport. Between the Downtown Transit Station and Fashion Square Mall, bus stops will
be served by transit every 10 minutes (30-minutes at night). Between Fashion Square
Mall and the airport, service frequency will be 20 minutes (60-minutes at night). This
service would replace Route 7. All Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 2. This
option would add nine new local routes, two commuter routes and modify three existing
routes.
Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $10.9 million in FY 2010.
This option requires 18 additional buses (six 30-ft buses, three 35-ft buses and two 40-ft
buses) and over 220 additional bus stops, costing between $8.1 million and $17.7 million.
In Option 3, 48.5 percent of revenue-hours are in Charlottesville and 51.5 percent of
revenue-hours are in Albemarle County. Option 3 would provide nearly 158,000 vehicle
revenue-hours per year.
4.5 Option 4
Option 4 introduces a Priority Transit service to the Charlottesville-Albemarle area as an
attractive alternative to travel in a private vehicle. This service could be Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT), light rail or streetcar, although for the purposes of this option, capital and
operating costs are estimated based on a BRT system. This option seeks to attract
"choice riders" by significantly improving the reliability of service, reducing travel time
and improving modal transfers. Travel time is composed of both "in-vehicle" and "out-
of-vehicle" travel time. In this option, reliability is improved and "in-vehicle" travel time
is reduced by providing exclusive transit lanes that allow transit vehicles to operate at
faster speeds. "Out-of-vehicle" travel time is reduced by improving headways on the
trunk route (Route 29 and West Main Street) and by timing connections at stations. All
Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 4. This option would add nine new local
routes, two commuter routes and modify three existing routes.
11 Range of Options Studied
Final Report
June 2008
Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $10.5 million in FY 2010.
This option requires 18 additional buses (six 30-ft buses and 12 40-ft buses) and over
220 additional bus stops, costing between $31.8 million and $123.0 million. While the
capital cost estimates in Option 4 are significantly higher than Option 3, one benefit is
lower operating costs, since vehicles can operate at higher speeds. In Option 4,
48.5 percent of the revenue-hours of service are operated in Charlottesville and
51.5 percent of the revenue-hours of service are operated in Albemarle County.
Option 4 would provide over 152,000 vehicle revenue-hours per year.
4.6 Option 4a
Option 4a resembles Option 4, except that headways are improved to a maximum of
15 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes during off-peak periods, to attract choice
riders. The operating costs for this option are estimated to be $16.7 million in FY 2010.
This option requires 45 additional buses and over 220 additional bus stops, costing
between $42.0 million and $138.0 million. In Option 4a, 45.0 percent of the revenue-
hours of service are operated in Charlottesville and 55.0 percent of the revenue-hours of
service are operated in Albemarle County. Option 4a would provide over 240,000
vehicle revenue-hours per year.
Table 4-1: Summary of Service Options
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 4a
Operating Cost
(millions of 2010 $)
$5.9
$8.8
$9.4
$10.9
$10.5
$16.7
Capital Cost
(millions of 2010 $)
$0
$4.6 - $10.3
$6.4 - $13.3
$8.1 - $17/7
$31.8 - $123.0
$42.0 - $138.0
Vehicle Revenue Hours
85,000
128,000
137,000
158,000
152,000
240,000
12 Range of Options Studied
Final Report
June 2008
5 Institutional and Funding Options
This section discusses the characteristics that a regional transit authority may be granted
by the Virginia Legislature and potential funding sources. An evaluation of several
potential institutions is provided in Appendix A. An in-depth discussion of funding
sources is provided in Appendix H.
5.1 Regional Transit Authority
A legislatively-enabled RTA could provide powers that are tailored to the desires of the
implementing organizations, plus the ability to generate revenue from new sources. To
date, the Virginia Legislature has created three Transportation Authorities that have
differing powers related to transportation, with the differences in powers generally
reflecting the desires of the authorities:
. The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) was created in 2002 to
administer new funds that were expected to be generated from a local sales tax for
transportation. NVTA was also provided with the power to construct and operate
transportation facilities and services. The sales tax failed to pass and NVTA became,
in effect, a transportation planning agency. The recently passed transportation bill
(H 3202) gave NVTA broad authority to levy a number of new taxes, to implement
tolls, program and implement transportation projects, and to issue bonds. However,
in February 2008 the Virginia Supreme Court ruled against the imposition of the H
3202 taxes and fees based upon the mechanism by which they were imposed.2
. The Williamsburg Area Transit Authority CWATA) was created in 2006 to merge two
existing transit systems, one of which was privately operated. The merger was
designed to provide more seamless transit service and to maximize state and federal
funding opportunities. Williamsburg and area counties are permitted to include
private institutions in the transportation authority. The parties that formed the
W AT A did not seek the authority to impose local taxes or fees, and thus W AT A
does not have this ability.
. The recent transportation bill (H 3202) creates a Hampton Roads Transportation
Authority. This authority has "all of the powers given to transportation district
commissions," plus broad powers to levy new taxes and fees, to impose tolls on new
and expanded transportation facilities, to issues bonds, and to use revenues for
transportation improvements. The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority is, in
many respects, a toll road authority, but with broad powers relating to all
transportation modes.
2 Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1071959.pdf .
13 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report
June 2008
The development of a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA would first require a regional
consensus on desired powers and funding authority, followed by the introduction of
legislation and legislative approval. Previously granted approval to the three existing
transportation/ transit authorities in Virginia may set precedents that could frame the
development of a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA.
5.1.1 Composition and Governance
The three existing Transportation Authorities are composed of combinations of cities
and counties, and in the case of Williamsburg, private institutions. Their governing
boards are comprised of representatives from its members, and except in Williamsburg,
the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), the House of Delegates, and
the Senate:
. NVTA is governed by a 16 member Board that is comprised of:
D The chief elected officer, or designee, from each of the member jurisdictions
(i.e., one representative per jurisdiction, irrespective of size).
D Two members from the House of Delegates.
D One member from the Senate.
D Two citizens appointed by the Governor.
D The Director ofDRPT, or his designee (ex-officio).
D The Chair of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or designee (ex-officio).
. WATA is governed by one member from Williamsburg, one member from York
County, and two members from James City County. In addition, those members
may elect up to three members "to represent the interests of higher-education
facilities (i.e., College of William and Mary) and nonprofit tourist-driven agencies in
the Williamsburg area (i.e., Colonial Williamsburg), provided that such member
facilities and organizations contribute significant fmancial resources to the
Authority.',3 WATA's Board does not include representatives from DRPT, the
House of Delegates, the Senate, or the Commonwealth Transportation Board. By
agreement of the RTA members, all board members will be non-elected officials.
. HRTA is governed by an 18 member Board that is comprised of:
D The chief elected officer, or designee, from each of the member jurisdictions
(i.e., one representative per jurisdiction, irrespective of size).
D One member from the Commonwealth Transportation Board who is from the
Hampton Roads area.
D Two members of the House of Delegates.
D One member of the Senate.
D Two citizens appointed by the Governor.
3 http://leq1.state.va.us/cqi-bin/leqp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-6803
14 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report
June 2008
o The Director ofDRPT, or designee (ex-officio).
o The Chair of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or his designee (ex-
officio) .
In the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, RTA legislation would need to specifically include
the ability for UVa to become a member, if this is so desired. The same would be
required for JAUNT to become a member.
5.1.2 Powers and Functions
The three Transportation/Transit Authorities established by the legislature generally
have the same powers as Transportation Districts. Each of the Authorities has also been
granted additional powers specific to its needs. The powers of Transportation Districts
are generally as follows:
. Prepare transportation plans.
. Construct and acquire the transportation facilities included in the transportation
plan.
. Operate or contract for the operation of transportation services.
. Enter into contracts and agreements.
. Issue bonds.
. Provide operating and capital funding for services operated by others (for example,
JAUNT, if JAUNT were not part of the RTA).
. Acquire land through purchase, lease, gift, condemnation, or otherwise; either for its
own use or on behalf of other agencies in connection with an adopted mass transit
plan.
. Regulate fares, determine schedules and routes, and franchising agreements within its
boundaries.
. Enter into contracts and agreements with adjoining counties and cities that are
within the same Planning District, and with adjoining Transportation Districts, to
provide transportation services to and from those areas, and to operate related
facilities.
. Apply for and receive loans and grants of money and property.
. Regulate traffic signals and other vehicle control devices.
An RTA could contract for service from an existing transit provider, including the City
of Charlottesville/CTS, UTS, and JAUNT. In this manner, an RTA could set regional
transit policies and determine services but avoid the need to develop new operational
capabilities. A new RTA could also assume ownership of existing CTS and UTS
equipment and personnel, if so desired.
15 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report
June 2008
Additional powers, beyond those of Transportation Districts, that have been granted to
Authorities include:
Northern Virginia Transportation Authority
. H 3202 provides the ability, following approval by the governing bodies of six of its
nine member jurisdictions, to levy a wide range of taxes and fees for transportation
purposes. NVTA voted to impose those taxes and fees but the Virginia Supreme
Court ruled that this provision of the legislation violated the state constitution.
. H 3202 also allows the authority to impose, collect, and set tolls on new or expanded
transportation facilities.
. Subject to certain conditions specified in H 3202, to determine the use of the new
taxes, fees and toll revenues.
. It is not clear whether NVTA has condemnation powers (it has the authority to
"construct or acquire, by purchase, lease, contract, or otherwise, the transportation
facilities specified in the plan.")
. H 3202 provides the ability for the authority to issue bonds.
Williamsburg Area Transit Authority
. WATA has generalized powers for oversight of Williamsburg area programs
involving public transit, congestion mitigation, priority setting, and advocacy.
. W A TA's enabling legislation does not provide it with the ability to condemn
property or to sell bonds. However, a "Cooperative Services Agreement" between
the founding parties will provide the ability to sell bonds, with those parties backing
the bonds.
Hampton Roads Transportation Authority
. HRTA can acquire, construct, and operate highways, bridges, tunnels, railroads,
rolling stock, transit and rail facilities, and other transportation-related facilities.
. H 3202 provides the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority the same
condemnation powers as transportation districts ("slow-take" condemnation).
. H 3202 provides the ability to issue bonds in the same manner as transportation
districts.
. H 3202 provides the ability, following approval by the governing bodies of seven of
its 12 member jurisdictions that represent 51 % of the population, to levy a wide
range of taxes and fees for transportation purposes. Seven jurisdictions voted to
impose those taxes and fees but the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that this provision
of the legislation violated the state constitution.
. H 3202 also authorizes the Authority to impose, collect and set tolls on new or
expanded transportation facilities.
16 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report June 2008
. Subject to certain conditions specified in H 3202, determine the use of the new taxes,
fees, and toll revenues. The conditions, among other things, specify the initial
projects to be undertaken.
. It is not clear whether the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority has bonding
authority. (Its enabling legislation does not specifically provide it, but other
legislation pertaining to authorities may provide the necessary authority).
5.1.3 Creation
The development of each of the three Transportation Authorities described herein was
by legislation. Similarly, the creation of a Charlottesville-Albemarle Transit Authority
would require legislation. This legislation would define the Authority, its governance and
its powers and duties. (See Appendix A and Appendix J for more detail)
5.1.4 Taxing and Revenue Authority
H 3202 provided a number of tax and fee revenue opportunities for the Northern
Virginia and Hampton Roads Transportation Authorities. Since court ruled that the
method of imposing the taxes violated the state constitution, these taxes have not been
imposed. The list, however, is illustrative of the nature of taxes that were acceptable to
the legislature. These new sources are listed in Table 5-1 and differed slightly for the two
regIOns:
Table 5-1: H3202 Funding Authorizations
Northern Virginia Hampton Roads
Transportation Transportation Authority
Authority
Region-Wide 4
Sales Tax on Gasoline -- 2%
Grantor's Tax (property transfer tax) 40~/$1 00 40~/$1 00
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax 2% 2%
Transient Occupancy Tax 2% --
Safety Inspection Fee $10 $10
Initial Vehicle Registration Fee 1% 1%
Sales Tax on Auto Repairs 5% 5%
ReQional ReQistration Fee $10 $10
Local Option
Commercial Real Estate Up to 25~ Up to 10~
Local Registration Fee $10 $10
Commercial/Residential Impact Fee TBD TBD
Annual Revenue (millions) $200 - $215 $425 - $445
4 A 2% sales tax on gasoline for transportation purposes is already levied in the portions of Northern Virginia that
are members of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission.
17 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report June 2008
. H 3202 authorized a 2% sales tax on motor fuels in the Hampton Roads region (this
tax is already collected in Northern Virginia).
. The bill authorized a 2% transient occupancy tax in Northern Virginia but not in the
Hampton Roads area.
. The commercial real estate tax can be up to 25~ per $100 in Northern Virginia, but
only up to 1 O~ in the Hampton Roads area.
In both regions, the legislation required that the governing bodies of a specified number
of local jurisdictions vote to impose the new regional taxes. Since this process for
imposing the taxes was ruled to be in conflict with the Virginia Constitution, some other
method of imposing taxing authority will need to be addressed in any new legislation.
In the Williamsburg area, W A TA does not have any special taxing authority. The
founding parties did not believe that new revenues were necessary nor did they believe
that there was sufficient local support to gain legislative approval for local taxes and fees.
For a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA, if new revenues are desired, the specific new
sources that could be available would have be specified in, or even imposed by, the
enabling legislation. The sources could be some or all of those that were authorized in
Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. The City and County should agree on proposed
taxes and rates before requesting enabling legislation for a transit authority.
5.1.5 Expenditure/Funding Obligations
Expenditure decisions for Transportation Authorities are made by their Boards, which
are configured as defined by their enabling legislations. The relationship between a new
Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA and participating organizations should be determined
during formation negotiations so that it may be defined by the Authority's enabling
legislation. This could specify fmancial commitments and limitations, and could
determine whether the individual organizations could withdraw.
5.1.6 Withdrawal
Enabling legislation for the three existing Transportation Authorities creates the
Authorities, defines their membership and provides no means for withdrawal.
Therefore, withdrawal would likely require new legislation.
5.1.7 Advantages and Disadvantages
The major advantages of an RTA are that it would be a true regional entity that could include
the city, county, lNa, and other organizations such as JAUNT, and whose sole focus would
be the provision of transit service. Furthermore, with dedicated revenue sources (if this
authority is sought and granted by the legislature) the RTA could operate independently of
the city and county, and reduce direct city and county expenditures for transit.
18 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report
June 2008
The disadvantages would be that an RTA would be the most difficult to implement of
the options considered for establishing a regional transit organization (see Appendix A),
as it would require enabling legislation. It would also lessen the city's level of direct
control over service.
5.2 Funding Sources
CTS and JAUNT are currently funded through a variety of federal, state, and local
sources. A new RTA would have access to all of the same state and federal funds now
used by these two operators. The members of the new organization would be
responsible for providing the local share of funding for the services, just as the City and
County do today. However, the development of a new RTA, in itself, would not impact
the amounts that would be available-rather, existing funds would simply be shifted to
the new R T A. Therefore, if the new R T A is to operate the services now provided by
CTS, the funds now received by CTS would be available for RTA service. Similarly, if
the new RTA were to operate some or all of the services now provided by JAUNT, the
funds now received by JAUNT could be shifted to the new RTA.
UTS is funded largely through UVa student fees. If UTS were to become a member of
the RTA these same funds could be used to fund UVa's share ofRTA service.
However, UTS also operates charter service for University events and organizations, and
charges fees for these services. Federal regulations prohibit recipients of federal transit
funding from operating charter services if there are other willing and able vendors.
Thus, an RTA, since it would need to receive federal transit funds, could probably not
provide UTS' charter services. Therefore, unless an alternative approach for providing
UVa's charter services can be devised, the federal funding regulations would likely
prevent UTS' participation in an RTA, unless the University established and maintained
a separate organizational unit for the charter services or contracted with a private
provider for charter services.
On the other hand, the inclusion of UVa in a new RTA could allow the region to
leverage up to $600,000 in new Statewide Operating Assistance.S This would be because
the provision of UV a services by a new R T A would allow these services to be included
in the allocation formula for Statewide Operating Assistance, which is based on total
operating costs. With higher operating costs, the RTA's share of statewide funds would
be higher. Federal funding formulae, however, are based on population and population
density, and thus there would be no impact on federal funding.
Beyond existing funding sources, there are also a large number of potential new funding
sources. The passage ofH 3202 in 2007 was intended to provide NVTA and HRTA, and
their member jurisdictions, with the authority to levy a broad array of new taxes and fees for
5 Note that state formula assistance calculations are based on services provided two years prior to the funding
year. Thus, there would be a two year time lag before these funds would become available.
19 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report
June 2008
transportation. The Virg1nia Supreme Court ruled against the imposition of the H 3202
taxes and fees based upon the mechanism by which they were imposed.6 However, with
legislation and corrections to the enabling authorities, it could still be possible to develop
similar revenue sources for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Property taxes and a local
sales tax are additional options that have been discussed as potential options.
The total amounts of new funding that could be generated by these sources could be
large: up to $18.4 million per year in Charlottesville and $34.1 million per year in
Albemarle County Table 5-2). Of special note is that a sales tax of 1 % or less would be
sufficient not only to fund the entire local share of the recommended transit service but
also to support bonds for the construction of the transit priority facilities.
A detail discussion of existing federal, state, and local funding sources, as well as
potential future funding sources is provided in Appendix H.
Table 5-2: Projected Annual Revenue (2009)
Charlottesville-
Rate Charlottesville Albemarle County Albemarle Area
H 3202 Authority Sources
Grantor's Tax 40i/$100 $1,112,426 $3,972,212 $5,084,638
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax 2% $51,603 $807,858 $859,461
Transient Occupancy Tax 2% $800,800 $666,653 $1,467,453
Safety Inspection Fee $10 $282,764 $878,210 $1,160,974
Initial Vehicle Registration 1% $854,974 $2,655,379 $3,510,353
Sales Tax on Auto Repairs 5% $450,314 $1,398,585 $1,848,899
Regional Registration Fee $10 $282,764 $878,210 $1,160,974
Motor Fuels Sales Tax 2% $1.405,527 $3,210,179 $4,615.706
Subtotal $5,241,173 $14,467,286 $19,708,459
H 3202 Local Option Sources
Commercial Real Estate 1 Oi/$1 000 $1,526,000 $1,707,760 $3,233,761
Local Registration Fee $10 $282,76 $878,210 $1,160,974
Commercial/Residential Impact Fee Locally Set Depends Depends Depends
upon rate upon rate upon rate
Subtotal $1,808,765 $2,585,970 $4,394,735
Other Sources
Property Tax W$1000 $526,713 $1,694,898 $2,221,612
Local Sales Tax 1% $10,815,000 $15,330,000 $26,145,000
Subtotal $11,341,713 $17,024,898 $28,366,612
Total All Sources $18,391,651 $34,078,155 $52,469,806
6 Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1071959.pdf .
20 Institutional and Funding Options
Final Report
June 2008
6 Policy and Community Input
Throughout the project guidance was provided by an advisory committee organized by
TJPDC. The committee included representatives from:
. Charlottesville Transit Service
. City of Charlottesville
. Albemarle County
. University of Virginia
. JAUNT
This group received draft copies of the Technical Reports and provided comments and
clarifications. Each of the Technical Reports is included as a separately published
Appendix to this document.
Policy and community input took several forms. Meetings with the advisory committee
were held on August 15, 2007, September 7, 2007, November 27, 2007 and April 30,
2008. Meetings with the Metropolitan Planning Organization were held on August 15,
2007 and November 21, 2007.
At the November 21,2007 meeting of the MPO Policy Board the study team presented
four options for the transit services that might be operated by a Transit Authority.
These ranged from minor changes to the current CTS service, to substantial expansion
of services in portions of Albemarle County. The direction given to the study team by
the MPO Policy Board was to develop a service plan that included both additional
services in Albemarle County (e.g. a route providing a direct connection from Pantops to
Hollymead) and enhanced services in the city of Charlottesville. The expanded service
plan is reported in Appendix D2 - Service Strategies Addendum
In December 2007, Mr. Rue of TJPDC made presentations, individually, to the
Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors of the study
progress and of direction given by the Policy Board of the MPO at its November 21,
2007 meeting.
The major milestone of the study was a Joint City/County work session held on
February 11, 2008. The draft agenda of that meeting is presented in Table 6-1. This
work session was attended by a majority of the members of both the City Council and
the Board of Supervisors as well as members of the advisory committee, the press, and
the public. The consensus of the work session was that the region should pursue
formation of a Transit Authority; that legislation should be sought to permit
implementation of the Authority with appropriate funding sources, and the Authority
should pursue implementation of the larger transit service options. Work by the project
team following the workshop was focused on defining the transit services the would
constitute the Transit Authority operating plan, defining the facilities and equipment that
21 Policy and Community Input
Final Report
June 2008
would be required to operate this service plan, estimating the capital and operating cost
of the preferred service plan, developing a proposed plan for allocation of Authority
costs between the member jurisdictions, and defIning the plan for transition from the
current operations to the Transit Authority.
Table 6-1: Draft Agenda - Joint City County Work Session, February 11, 2008
22 Policy and Community Input
Final Report
June 2008
7 Recommended Service Plan
Section 4 discusses the six options (including a baseline) that were presented to the advisory
committee, the Metropolitan planning Organization and the Joint Meeting of the City and
County held on February 11,2008. Option 4a was selected as the preferred alternative to be
operated by a RTA. The backbone of this service is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route
operating along Route 29/West Main Street, between the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
and the Downtown Transit Station. The proposed service strategy substantially increases
service in Albemarle County and improves headways in the City of Charlottesville. While the
recommended service plan is based on Option 4a, it has been modified to incorporate
planned service changes in fall 2008 and refined cost estimates. The recommended service
plan is discussed below, and described in greater detail in Appendix G.
This service increases the attractiveness of transit by significantly improving the
reliability of service, reducing travel time, and improving transfers to other routes:
. Service Reliability: Exclusive transit lanes on Route 29 will improve service
reliability by enabling buses traveling on the BRT route to avoid congestion.
. Travel Time: Composed of both "in-vehicle" and "out-of-vehicle" travel time. "In-
vehicle" travel time is reduced by providing exclusive transit lanes on the BRT route
that allow transit vehicles to operate at faster average speeds by avoiding congestion.
"Out-of-vehicle" travel time is reduced by improving service frequency on all routes,
by timing transfers at stations, and by providing real-time bus arrival time
information to riders.
. Transfers: Transfers between routes are timed transfers at both the Downtown
Transit Station and a proposed transit station at Barracks Road Shopping Center.
Potential future transfer stations could include UV A Hospital and Albemarle Square.
The proposed RTA service would add eight new local routes, two commuter routes and
modify the alignment of one existing route. In addition, most of the existing routes
would have their headways improved to between 15 and 30 minutes. Overall, the
operating costs to fully implement this option are estimated to be $16.2 million in
FY 2009, although it is unlikely that all recommendations will be implemented before
FY 2011 or FY 2012. The fully implemented RTA service requires a fleet of 76 vehicles
during the peak hour, 54 vehicles more than the current CTS fleet (43 30-ft buses and
11- to 40-ft buses), 12 spare vehicles and approximately 200 additional bus stops, costing
between $50.1 million and $150.8 million. Additional space for the storage and
maintenance of the expanded fleet will also be needed. With the fully implemented RTA
service enhancements, 47.5 percent of the revenue-hours of service could be attributed
to Charlottesville and 52.5 percent of the revenue-hours of service could be attributed to
Albemarle County. However, this is subject to a cost allocation agreement between the
two jurisdictions (see Section Error! Reference source not found.). Overall, the fully
23 Recommended Service Plan
Final Report
June 2008
implement service enhancements would provide nearly 240,000 vehicle revenue-hours
per year.
24 Recommended Service Plan
.
Final Report
June 2008
8 Transit Authority and Funding
Currendy, Charlottesville and Albemarle County split the local share of operating costs
based on which jurisdiction is considered-through agreement-to be the primary
beneficiary of the route. Individual routes are designated as either "City" or "County"
routes, and Charlottesville then pays the local share of operating costs for the City
routes, and Albemarle County pays the local share of operating costs for the County
routes.7 Until FY 2008, all of the local shares of capital costs are paid by the City, and
the City retained ownership of all assets. Beginning in FY 2008, the County began to
make limited capital contributions for county service, but the City continues to own all
assets.
To date, this system has worked well. CTS' original routes were all designed to serve the
City, and are designated as City routes. More recendy implemented routes were
developed at the behest of either the City or County, and were designated as City or
County routes on the basis of which jurisdiction desired the new services. However, in
the future, as the system grows to become more regional, it is likely that the region will
desire the development of new routes that will provide regional benefits. As this occurs,
it will become more difficult, if not impossible, to attribute all costs to one jurisdiction or
the other, and not to share them between the two.
This section first discusses cost allocation methods used by other transit agencies. It then
discusses how various cost allocation methods would impact the RTA and their
implications. An in depth discussion of these issues is provided in Appendix 1.
8.1 Cost Allocations Methods Used by Other Transit Agencies
Transit agencies vary widely in size, membership, and governance. Many have dedicated
funding sources such as local sales or gas taxes that fund all of the local costs of their
services, and thus cost allocation between partners is not necessary. For those that do
allocate costs between partners, many examples of cost-sharing formulas exist. A
number of different measures are used, the most common being:
. Population
. Passengers
. Service Hours
. Service Miles
. Assignment of routes to specific entities (as with CTS).
7 This process has begun to evolve. For 2008, the City and County agreed that the local operating shares for a
new route (Route 28) would be split 50/50 because the route provides service in both the City and County. To
date this is the only CTS route that is not designated exclusively as either a City or County service.
25 Transit Authority and Funding
Final Report
June 2008
Most use a combination of measures, and most are relatively simple. Those that use
multiple measures typically weight the different measures in ways that are intended to be
equitable and efficient. It is also common for transit systems to revise cost allocation
formulas to reflect service or other changes and to improve equity. For example, both
Virginia Railway Express and the Des Moines Regional Transit Authority are considering
changes to their cost-sharing formulas. In a similar manner as Charlottesville, the
George Washington Region is also examining cost allocation changes in conjunction
with the development of a new transportation authority.
The simple approaches probably link costs to benefits in a less precise manner than the
more complicated approaches. However, they are generally preferred because the
benefits of a simpler, transparent, and more straightforward approach are typically
viewed as more important than increasing the degree of accuracy at the expense of
administrative cost and complexity. Simpler methods are also more transparent and can
be explained easily to the public. In the cases where complex methodologies are used,
they were developed to address specific issues of individual partners.
Of the 10 transit systems examined, four use a single measure to allocate costs
(Table 8-1). In the same manner as Charlottesville, Fredericksburg allocates routes and
associated costs to individual jurisdictions. Chapel Hill and Nashville allocate costs
solely based on population. SFRTA splits costs equally among its three member
counties.
The other six transit systems split costs based on multiple measures. Williamsburg uses
service hours, service miles, and adjustment factors that are designed to address concerns
of specific members. VRE currently allocates costs on the basis of population and
passengers, but is proposing to its members to switch to a purely passenger-based
allocation.
26 Transit Authority and Funding
.
Final Report
June 2008
Table 8-1: Cost Allocation Methodologies
- >. ~ ~
c - 0
Q) 'iij III - Q)
E c ~ u c..
Q) ~ C'll e
c C III :i LL
C) ~ ::J ~ - a..
'iij c c 0 ... C ~
III 0 0 Q) ::I: ~ Q) Q) "t:l c..
~ :;:; :;:; C) C) E Q) en
C'll C'll C Q) Q) c - III
Q) "3 "3 Q) u u Q) III III "'iii
- III .~ .~ III ::J Q)
::J c.. c.. III III 'S' III ::J
0 0 0 C'll Q) Q) C'll III c-
o:: a.. a.. a.. en en a.. ~ ~ w
Charlottesville, VA '-l
Williamsburg, VA '-l '-l '-l
F redericksbu rg, VA
Existing '-l
Proposed '-l
Washington, DC (VRE)
Existing '-l '-l
Proposed '-l
Washington, DC (WMATA Bus) '-l '-l '-l '-l '-l
Chapel Hill, NC '-l
Nashville RT A '-l
South Florida '-l
San Luis Obispo, CA '-l '-l '-l '-l
Des Moines, IA '-l '-l
Butte County, CA '-l '-l '-l
8.2 Impact of Different Methods for Charlottesville-Albemarle RT A
In the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, a number of decisions still need to be made, and
additional work conducted, before cost share estimates for local partners can be fully
developed. For example, RTA partners will need to determine the services that will be
provided, and these decisions will impact both overall costs and the amount of seryice
provided in specific areas. Also, ridership projections will need to be developed in order
to estimate the amount of fare revenue that would be generated by each route and in
specific areas.
Until those decisions have been made and associated work conducted, it is not possible
to precisely determine how the use of the allocation methods described above would
impact costs for Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA partners. However, to provide a
generalized indication of the cost difference impacts of various approaches, this section
presents costs share estimates of operating the preferred option (see Section Error!
Reference source not found.) for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County for
an RTA composed of the City and the County assuming:
27 Transit Authority and Funding
Final Report
June 2008
The continued use of a similar methodology as at present that allocates costs
existing routes entirely to the jurisdiction that would receive the most benefit. For new
routes:
. Where one jurisdiction would clearly receive more benefit that the other, all costs
would be allocated to that jurisdiction.
. Where both jurisdictions would receive significant benefits, the costs would be split
50/50.
A cost allocation based on vehicle service hours and/or miles. These estimates are
intended to illustrate the impacts of a cost allocation process that, in many respects,
would be similar to the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority methodology, without the
numerous adjustments, and the proposed George Washington Region RTA vehicle
service hour-based methodology.
Because not all of the information needed to fully develop these estimates is available,
two simplifying assumptions are used:
1. The services that would be provided by the RTA would be those described for
service Option 4C. Note that this is not exactly the same as the recommended
system.
2. Vehicle service miles, which could be easily determined by jurisdiction, were used as
a surrogate for vehicle service hours, which would be significantly more difficult to
develop. In most cases, the split of revenue hours and revenue miles by jurisdiction
should be similar. The differences that would exist would be related to higher
operating speeds in Albemarle County than in Charlottesville due to less dense
development and less congestion. This means that more miles of service could be
provided per hour of service in Albemarle County than in Charlottesville. As a
result, the use of service miles instead of hours may slightly overstate County costs.
With the ultimate use of service hours instead of miles, City costs would be
somewhat higher than presented, and County costs somewhat lower than presented.
With the continued use of a similar methodology as at present, costs would be assigned
to the City and/or County on a route-by-route basis. With this methodology, 52% of
costs would be allocated to the City, and 48% of costs would be allocated to the County.
With the use of vehicle miles, the City would pay a slightly higher share, as 54% of
vehicle miles would be in the City and 46% would be in the County (also see Table 4).
The use of a vehicle hour and vehicle mile methodology as in Williamsburg would
28 Transit Authority and Funding
Final Report
June 2008
increase the City share by an undetermined, but likely small amount. The use of a purely
vehicle hour based methodology would further increase the City share, again by an
undetermined, but likely small amount.
The differences, in percentage terms are not particularly large, only about 3%. For the
service option for which the analysis was done, with a continuation of the existing
methodology, the City's share of operating costs would be $8.9 million and the County's
share would be $8.2 million.8 With a cost split based on vehicle miles, the City's share
would be $9.2 million, and the County's share would be $7.9 million. Using a cost split
combination of vehicle miles and hours, or purely vehicle hours, the City's share would
be somewhat lower and the County's share somewhat higher.
8.3 Implications for a Charlottesville-Albemarle RT A
All of the cost allocation methodologies documented in Appendix I represent different
approaches that link costs to benefits in ways that are mutually acceptable to all partners.
Most, but not all, are simple. These simple approaches link costs to benefits in a less
precise manner than the more complicated approaches. However, they are generally
preferred because the benefits of a simpler, more straightforward approach are typically
viewed as more important than increasing the degree of accuracy at the expense of
complexity, and the increased costs for data collection and administration. In the cases
where complex methodologies are used, they were developed to address specific issues
of individual partners.
For the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, the examples provide a starting point for the
development of a cost allocation methodology for a new RTA. As part of the issues to
be resolved the City and the County will need to identify the specific elements that
should be reflected in the cost allocation methodology. Ideally, it will be possible to
address any issues within a simple process. However, as described in the examples
above, it should be possible to address a wide number of issues within a defined cost
allocation process.
As a starting point for discussion, for an RTA that would consist of the City and the
County, a cost and revenue allocation plan that is similar to that being proposed for the
George Washington Region is recommended (see Appendix I for greater detail). Such a
process would entail the following:
8 Note that these costs represent the respective shares of total operating costs, and not net operating costs. A
large proportion of these costs would be funded with federal, state, and other operating subsidies, and the actual
costs to the City and County would be much lower (for example, for FY 2008, the City will fund 45% of the total
operating budget). Thus, the actual local costs associated with the respective shares, and the cost differences
between the cost allocation methods, would be significantly lower.
29 Transit Authority and Funding
Final Report
June 2008
Cost Allocation
1. Allocate total operating and capital costs based on a single measure, which would be
revenue vehicle hours of service (RVH) in each jurisdiction, with only limited
exceptions. Exceptions would include:
D Routes that operate in a jurisdiction but do not serve that jurisdiction (for
example, through an area where there are no stops).
D Routes that clearly serve residents of only one jurisdiction (for example, express
service).
Revenue Allocation
1. Allocate non-dedicated operating subsidies (for example, federal and state operating
assistance) between the City and County on the basis of total RVH in each
jurisdiction. (If an Authority is created and the Authority has taxing powers, those
revenues would also be considered to be non-dedicated revenues.) In effect, non-
dedicated revenue sources would be taken "off-the-top."
2. Allocate dedicated subsidies (for example CMAQ funds for a specific route and
UVa's contribution to free trolley service) between the City and County based on
R VH for the services for which the funds are provided.
3. Allocate fare revenue and UVa's contribution for free fares for students and
employees based on the percent of riders from Charlottesville and the percent of
riders from Albemarle County (which could be determined by periodic surveys or
based on AM peak boardings). If different fares are to be charged on different types
of routes, fare revenue could be allocated using a combination of rider residences
and average fares on a route-by-route basis).
4. Calculate net local costs as each jurisdiction's share of total costs minus its share of
subsidy revenue and fare revenue. (Note that an Authority with taxing powers could
potentially generate sufficient revenues to cover all operating and capital costs, and in
this case, net local costs could be zero.)
The above approach would represent a relatively simple and straight-forward approach
that would address the most important local issues. Additional adjustments can be
made, and in most cases there would be no "right" or "wrong" technical reasons to
include or not include them. Instead, these types of adjustments would represent policy
choices related to a greater emphasis on simplicity and transparency or the most precise
accounting possible of all costs and revenues. Most other systems opt for simple and
transparent methods that all parties believe represent a fair, if not completely precise,
allocation of costs and revenues. However, others, and the Williamsburg Transit
Authority is the best example of the systems examined, opt for more complex methods
that may provide more precise results.
Finally, the method ultimately chosen should provide flexibility for future changes.
While the current emphasis is on the development of a transit authority that comprises
the City and County, there may be a desire in the future to include UVa and/or JAUNT.
30 Transit Authority and Funding
Final Report
June 2008
In that event, the methodology proposed above could include both with only minor
adjustments. In the case of UV a, the UV a Grounds could become its service area, with
costs and miles allocated accordingly.9 JAUNT costs within Charlottesville and
Albemarle County could be allocated similarly, with supplemental agreements with other
counties to cover costs in outlying areas.
9 At the present time, for cost allocation purposes, the UVa Grounds are considered to be part of the City.
31 Transit Authority and Funding
.
Final Report
June 2008
9 Implementation Schedule
This section identifies the key issues to be resolved prior to seeking action by the
General Assembly to establish a Transit Authority and proposes a time table for the
transition from operations by CTS to operations by the new Authority.
9.1 Implementation Issues
The actions required to establish a Transit Authority and begin operations fall into five
general topics:
. Determination of desired structure and powers
. Obtaining legislative authority
. Establishing Authority by-laws and procedures
. Official concurrence by participating jurisdictions
. Transfer of staff and equipment
Determination of Desired Structure and Powers
One model for determining the structure and powers of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Transit Authority is the Williamsburg Transit Authority. The legislation establishing the
Williamsburg Transit Authority was general, defming the bodies that may join the
Authority, the powers and responsibilities of the Authority, and the composition and
membership of the Board. The many remaining details were then left to be resolved by
the Board of the Authority.
Charlottesville and Albemarle County representatives have indicated that the Transit
Authority to be established in this region should seek taxing powers. The Williamsburg
Transit Authority neither sought nor was granted taxing powers by the General
Assembly. As of this writing the question of what, if any, taxes will be authorized for the
Transportation Authorities in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, and whether such
taxes would be imposed by the General Assembly or by the individual jurisdictions
comprising the Authorities, is still an open issue.
Representatives of Charlottesville and Albemarle County will need to monitor actions
by the legislature and coordinate with other localities in Virginia also seeking to form an
Authority, in order to determine whether they will need to request taxing authority and,
if so, what forms of taxation may be approved.
To move forward remainder of 2008 should be devoted to resolving specific issues in
preparation for submitting a request to the General Assembly to establish the Transit
Authority in 2009. Prior to seeking action by the General Assembly, the City and
County will need to come to agreement on the issues identified above. The key items to
resolve are:
32 Transit Authority and Funding
..
Final Report June 2008
. Composition of the Board of Directors of the Authority
. Revenue sources to be authorized or imposed
It is suggested that the governing bodies of the City and County appoint working groups
to come to agreement on these issues and that a facilitator be engaged to assist. Other
topics can be left for resolution by the Board of Directors once the Authority is
.
authorized, but before formal agreement by the jurisdictions. A full list of the many
issues that must be addressed prior to seeking legislative action are provided in Appendix
J.
Obtaining Legislative Authority
The transition plan and schedule proposed herein assumes that agreement can be
reached on the nature of the requested legislation by the end of December 2008, and
that the creation of an Authority by the General Assembly occurs in the 2009 session.
Establishing Authority By-laws and Procedures
Once legislation creating the Transit Authority is approved, the participating jurisdictions
will need to appoint or designate the members of the Board and proceed to adopt the
bylaws that will govern the Authority and the operating procedures. There are many
topics that must be addressed in the bylaws. These will include allocation of revenues
obtained by the Authority; procedures for determining the services to be provided;
responsibilities of the participating jurisdictions for fmancial support of Authority
services and activities, and personnel policies. It is suggested that working committees
assisted by a professional facilitator be formed to resolve these issues.
Official Concurrence by Participating Jurisdictions
After agreement is reached on by-laws and procedures, each jurisdiction will need to take
formal action to agree to join the Authority. When both the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County have taken the appropriate actions the Authority can formally come
into existence.
Transfer of Staff and Equipment
The time of the transfer of responsibility for the operation of transit services from CTS
to the Authority, and the transfer of the staff and physical assets of CTS to support such
operations, will depend on the timing of the revenue streams authorized for the
Authority. Once the Authority has begun to collect revenues and has accumulated
sufficient reserves, transfers in accord with procedures to be adopted may take place.
The service plan proposed for the Authority assumes significandy more service than
currendy operated by CTS (see Section 7). New vehicles will need to be purchased and
new staff will need to be hired and trained. Both take time. The lead time for new buses
can be 18 to 24 months. Those forming the Authority will need to determine at what
point the transfer of operations from the City to the Authority is appropriate.
33 Transit Authority and Funding
.
Final Report
June 2008
9.2 Implementation Schedule
The implementation schedule is based on resolution by the joint City /
County working groups of all key issues by fall of 2008 and action by the General
Assembly in 2009. The Authority would come into existence on July 1, 2009. It is
assumed that collection of revenues that will fund the Authority would begin at this time.
In the expectation that an Authority will be formed, the City and County should establish
an informal service planning committee to work with CTS management to defIne the
services that would be operated in the fIscal year beginning July 1, 2009, and the methods
for funding these services should the Authority not be authorized or should the revenues
accruing to the Authority not be suffIcient to cover all costs. These services will represent
the first step in the transition to full authority operation. In the latter half of 2009,
assuming favorable action by the General Assembly, the Authority board would undertake
other needed actions including adopting services plans and budgets for the following years,
finalizing an agreement for transfer of assets from the City of Charlottesville to the
Authority, placing orders for new buses, and initiating the process of hiring and training
staff.
Under the contemplated schedule, the Authority would assume responsibility for transit
services from CTS effective January 1, 2010. Given the lead times necessary to procure
vehicles and to hire and train staff, it is unlikely that all proposed services could be
operational at that time. The transition period would continue through the first half of
2010 with services continuing to expand as new buses arrive.
A general schedule of activities for establishment of the Transit Authority and the
transition of operations from CTS to the new Authority is presented in Figure 9-1,
Figure 9-2, and Figure 9-3.
34 Transit Authority and Funding
.
Final Report
June 2008
Figure 9-1: Possible Transition Schedule (2008)
2008
May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
Implementation Actions
Form working committee (s) I
(composed of staff and elected
Define Authority Organization
Functions
Methods for
determining
services to be
operated
Develop Authority
personnel policies
Methods for cost
sharing
Assess Funding Needs I I
Review alternative funding sources I I
Indentify preferred funding I I
Coordinate with GW Region, I I I I I I I
Coordinate with VA legislative L- I W
Define powers to be requested
Draft memoranda of
Prepare package for legislature
Establish informal service planning
Action by General Assembly
Appoint Board Members
Collect revenues
Hire General manager
Adopt service plan
Order buses
Locate operating base(s)
Develop agreement to transfer
Transfer Assets
Begin authority Operations
Hire and train new staff
Expa nd service as buses are
delivered
35
Transit Authority and Funding
..-..
0'\
o
o
N
--
~
"'3
"tl
~
...::
u
en
Q
o
...
....
...
(I)
Q
<:e
...
f-4
~
:0
...
(I)
(I)
o
~
.,:.;
I
....
t::
(!)
E
;:l
u
o
""Cl
t::
.....
(!)
~
VJ
""Cl
(!)
t;:l
.....
u
(!)
0...
VJ
4-<
o
.+-J
~
(!)
.+-J
o
Z
l:<
o
...
...
~
~
...
=
OJJ
~
.
Final Report
36
u
OJ
Cl
>
o
z
u
o
~
"-
OJ
Vl
00
:0
<(
>-
~
0'>
0
0
N
OJ
C
~
>-
'"
:2:
0.
<(
~
'"
:2:
.0
OJ
u.
c
~
'"
C
o
:;::;
u
<(
C
o
:;::;
2
c
OJ
E
OJ
c.
E
'"
ro
'13
E
o
"0
~ 5
V) u :;:;
OJ '"
~ cu N
+-' "'0 'c:
.~ ~ ~
E::::: 0
8 ~ .~
~o (;
32"'0-:5
~ OJ :0
~ 8. ~
E i5 .g
[i u ~
E
"'
OJ
u
'2:
3:
.E .~]
~ tIl c: ro
g]'~ ~
~ Q) ~ 0
~~~~
>- '"
~ :g
-50
:0 "-
<(-
OJ
"- C
o c
Qj ~
> ~
OJ OJ
Cl "-
'"
~ OJ
'" ~
8 :0
.E ~
'" c
-g bO :0
-:5 C r.I) C
Q) .~ -g ~
~ -s; Q) Q)
z .~
0010
.~ E
-g ~
~ro
'" ;:
'" OJ
~ 'S:
~~
"0
_c
'" 0
arE
u -'=
5 .~
o cr: OJ
'" - >
~ 5 ~
.- '50 Vi
] ~.~
'+-3;-
~(!):;:
~~~
Qj ;: ;:
a2~
>- '" '"
':::: c:: c
1::~:C
~ (5 (;
c 8 8
Transit Authority and Funding
00
c
'0
"'0 C ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ -ffi
g -g "bi)
l... ::::I ~
~b.E
~1j
~ E ~
"- OJ
Q) E ~
c 4::' a.
~ ro ~
~ 0 a.
00
c
'c
c
'"
C.
OJ
u
.~
OJ
'"
ro
E
.2
.S
:;
:0
~
UJ
>-
:0
E
3:
~
ro
Q;
c
OJ
(!)
>-
.0
C
o
B
<(
'"
~
OJ
.0
E
OJ
:2: :D
"E :0
'" C
o ~
~ ~
c ~
.- u
8.~
"- 0
<( u
Q;
00
'" c
c '"
"'c.
E OJ
~ .~ ~
c OJ :0
OJ '" .0
t!Jc.Qj
.~ .g "E
I<(O
"'
~
OJ
:::
'"
~
C
tIl ~
is
'" ~
.0 C
00 OJ
:S ~ ~
~ ~ e::
~ ~ ~
o "- ~
~ 0 ~
ro CD ~
u ~ ~
.9 Cl f-
'"
c
o
:;::;~
~ 19
OJ '"
g ~
.~ ~
(5 'ro
-'= ~
~ ~
:0 "0
'" C
C '"
.~ .~
'" I
June 2008
"0
OJ
Q;
.~
Cii
"0
~
'"
'"
3:
:0
.0
'"
'"
OJ
u
'>
~
"0
C
'"
"-
x
UJ
.
Final Report
June 2008
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Possible Transition Schedule (2010 and
continuing)
2010
Jan Feb March April May June Continuing
Implementation Actions
Form working committee (s)
(composed of staff and elected
Define Authority Organization
Functions
Methods for
determining
services to be
operated
Develop
Authority
personnel policies
Methods for cost
sha ri ng
Assess Funding Needs
Review alternative funding sources
Indentify preferred funding
Coordinate with GW Region,
Coordinate with VA legislative
Define powers to be requested
Draft memoranda of
Prepare package for legislature
Establish informal service planning
Action by General Assembly
Appoint Board Members
Collect revenues
Hire General manager
Adopt service plan
Order buses
Locate operating base(s)
Develop agreement to transfer
Transfer Assets
Begin authority Operations
Hire and train new staff
Expand service as buses are
delivered
37
Transit Authority and Funding
I
I
'I
II
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
.1
I
I
II
I
II
'I
I
I
I
'I
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Transit Work Session Booklet
Regional Transit Opportunities and Challenges
for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area
I
-'
l.
\.
',',
"'-- ',~ 1
, - '-
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
10:00 am - 1 :00 pm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
City Space, Charlottesville Community Design Center
100 Fifth St. NE, 2nd Floor
Charlottesville, Virginia
...
tjpdc.org
.1
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I.
I.
I.
I
'I
I
I
Joint Work Session:
Regional Transit Authority Final Reports
and 2009 Legislative Session Preparation
Participant Materials Booklet
Tuesday, August 5, 10:00 a.m.-l :OOp.m.
CitySpace, 100 5th Street NE
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Please direct comments and questions about the work session to:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
401 East Water Street
PO Box 1505
Charlottesville, VA 22902-11505
434.979.7310 phone
434.979.1597 fax
info@tjpdc.org email
http:// www.tjpdc.org/ transportation/ mpo.asp website
~
I-
I tjpdc.org
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, V A 22902 www.tjpdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.orgemail
I
Agenda
Joint City/County Work Session on Regional Transit Authority
Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 10:00 am-l:00 pm
City Space, Charlottesville Community Design Center
100 Fifth St. NE, 2nd Floor, Charlottesville, Virginia.
I
I.
Welcome, Work Session Goals, and Expected Outcomes
(15 minutes total)
I'
Work Session Goal: To reach consensus on the immediate next steps that City, County and TJPDC staff should take to
prepare for upcoming 2009 Session of the General Assembly.
I
Expected Outcomes: During this work session, decision makers are expected to reach consensus on how to proceed with
finalizing a desired governance structure and preferred tax and revenue option, so that draft legislation can be developed.
Decision makers will also be asked to review and comment on the draft implementation plan for aRT A.
I
II.
Discuss Draft Final RT A Study Reports, and Structure, Governance, and Revenue Options
Comments and questions by decision makers are expected and encouraged at any time during this segment.
11: 30-11 :45 Break, pick up lunch, continue
1. Summer 2008 Special Legislative Session Overview: Our legislative liaison to provide an overview.
(1 hr 45 mins total)
I
II
I
2. Highlights of Remaining RTA Study Reports: The consultant will review the recommendations from several of the key
remaining RTA Study reports that will assist decision makers in the development of the RTA. Examples include a
Staffing Plan, Service Standards, and Service and Cost Allocation Plans.
I
3. Review of Implementation Plan and Schedule: The consultant will review the plan and schedule iflegislation is
approved during the 2009 General Assembly session.
n
.
4. Structure and Governance: At the February 2008 joint work session, decision makers unanimously decided to complete
the study and pursue a Regional Transit Authority, in lieu of other forms of governance, as its final recommendation.
Decision makers must now employ an effective working group to decide what the exact structure and governance for the
R T A will be, in order to specify that structure in the enabling legislation.
I
5. Revenue / Taxing Options: At the February 2008 joint work session, decision makers unanimously agreed that in order
to provide transit services at the level expected of aRT A, the enabling legislation must contain a taxing and revenue
authority. Decision makers must now employ an effective working group to decide what tax and fee revenue
opportunities this region should pursue, in order to specify them in the enabling legislation.
I
I
II
I
III.
Public Comment Period: each person will be allowed to speak for 1 minute
(approximately 20 minutes total)
IV.
Identify Next Steps:
(Yz hour total)
II
1. Overview of Outstanding Issues and Decisions: Even if authority to establish a Regional Transit Authority is granted in
2009, many details must still be resolved for the Authority to function and sustain services. A brief overview will be
provided.
I
2. Between now and the RT A - Should we have a Plan B? A brief discussion of how City and County staff should proceed
with funding and operations strategies for transit services, in the event that the authority to establish the R T A and
institute new funding mechanisms are not granted in 2009.
V.
Work session wrap up
(5 minutes)
I
I
As the overall regional transit discussion moves forward, there will be several additional opportunities during which public input and
involvement will be actively solicited.
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
~
I.
I
I
II
I
II
,I
I
II
I
I
I
I
!I
I
-
tj pdc.org
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
POB 1505,401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.org email
Memorandum
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville City Councilors
Melissa Barlow, Director of Transportation Programs
August I, 2008
RTA Joint Work Session Key Points and Desired Outcomes
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
In preparation for the Tuesday, August 5, 2008 Joint Work Session, MPO staff have provided the
following summary of key points and desired outcomes.
A. Goal of Work Session
. Direction to enable staffto prepare for 2009 General Assembly Session
B. Major Topics of Conversation
. A brief summary of the General Assembly Summer Special Session
. A brief overview of some of the final study work products
. A review of the RTA implementation plan and schedule
. Discussion of priority decision points, outstanding issues and decisions
. Review of strategies for service operations and funding between now and the R T A
C. Recommendations from MPO Transit Tech Team
. Immediate formation/appointment of a Joint Working Group of two elected each, to reach
consensus on priority decision points
. City and County agree to act on recommendations from Joint Working Group, rather than
come back to MPO
D. To Be Prepared for the Work Session, Please:
. Read the Draft Final Report
. Understand that key decisions will not be made at the meeting, but be prepared to state your
opinion about governance and financing structure
. Be ready to form/appoint a joint working group to reach consensus on priority decisions, or
propose another method or mechanism that will yield same results in timely fashion
E. Expected Outcomes
. Identify a clear process to reach consensus on key decisions in a timely manner
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
'I
!.
~.
I
:1
I
II
I.
I
I
I
,I
-
tjpdc.org
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.~pdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax . info@~pdc.org email
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority
DRAFT Transit Vision
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority will provide fast, frequent,
dependable, and seamless transit service throughout the area.
Goals
. Provide direct links between and among the four major destinations in the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County: Downtown, UV AlMedical Center, Pantops, and the
Rt. 29 North corridor.
. Provide competitive choices for travel throughout the region - for residents, commuters,
employees, students, and visitors.
. Improve routes and choices for underserved communities and individuals.
. Attract 'choice' riders - those who currently drive for most trips.
. Increase access to medical, employment, tourist, recreation, education, service and retail
destinations throughout the region.
. , Integrate transit fully with other modes oftransportation - walking, wheeling, carpooling,
driving alone, and regional bus and rail.
. Serve as a tool to help make the area 'Livable for a Lifetime.'
. Reduce traffic congestion, pollution, energy consumption, and personal travel costs.
Working methods
. Create a unified regional transit plan to identify 1) routes, 2) level of service 3) phasing,
4) vehicle technology, 5) funding requirements, and 6) operating responsibilities.
. Secure a sustainable, stable funding source for new equipment, physical improvements,
operations, and maintenance.
. Work with localities, businesses and developers to plan for mixed-use Transit Oriented
Development (around existing service) and Transit-Ready Development (for future system
expansion).
. Design routes and schedules so that service to existing areas is maintained or improved.
. Coordinate physical improvements around bus waiting areas and transit stations.
. Maximize service efficiency through:
o Innovative use of technology for vehicle tracking/on-time performance/real-time info.
o Increased coordination of service planning and operations.
o Seamless marketing, communications, and education for user-friendly customer
expenence.
. Promote and provide opportunities to utilize public-private partnerships
I
I-
'I
I-
I-
I-
I
:1
I
II
I-
!-
!-
,
I
II
I
:1
I
,I
I
I
!-
,
I
~I
,
I
CTS V5. RTA: SERVICE AND COST COMPARISON
, 1i.~,lrJil~ (~C!Q~~ JiF~'-
-.
Vehicles 41 76
Employees 78 225
Revenue Miles (Millions) 1.0 2.7
Operating Costs (Millions) $6.0 $16.2
RTA IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
.'
,:'.
Fall 2008
City and County Develop Legislation
October 2008
City and County FY10 Budget Development Cycle Begins
January 2009
Present to General Assembly
July 2009
Authority to form RTA Granted
October 2009
City and County FYll Budget Development Cycle Begins
July 2010
RTA Formed and Revenue Collection Begins
July 2011
RTA Begins Operating Services
I r- )::. r- I\) )> -t (J) r ""U 0 (J) :;U() r () J: (J) s: :;u (J) :J (J) -t s: G> J: "
Q CI) Q c::> 0 C Q a - c CD 0 0 0 OJ c 0 CD Q) ;::0: Q) Ol 0 .., OJ
I () CI) fJ c::> (") ':r (") CD' Q)
t:: (J) - 0" 0" ~. 3 3 0" .-+ (Q CD iir :J .-+
Q) :3 Ut D) .-+ Q) "0 CD .-+ Q) (.) .-+ 0 o. 0 :J (.)
II - - 0 0 CD 0 0.3 3 0 00 .-+ 00 .-+
.., N .., '< .., N
C/) (I) G) ~ C .-+ (J) ;:+ .-+ CD CD :;u .-+ :J -t < roo 0
CI) .., Q) en Q) CD 0 Q) "T\ Q) < .., 0
Q) OJ Q) (") Q) '< 0 ;a. .., CD .., N C Q) CD :J :J CD 00- N
CD en CD CD -t -. (") (Q (") CD X :J" 00 .-+ :J"
0 C Q) -. iir r- :;u o' "0 0 -t )>
en '*- 00 00 Q) c:; Q) 00 0 00 0 o.
Q;i ~ x :::::::: .-+ CD :J CD CD (") CD Q) c
I Q;i 0 -t CD 3 Ol :;u 0 (J) (Q (") (") x -
.... >< Q) D) (ii' )> .-+ ':r
Q3 G') tA "0 .-+ CD Q) :;u o' c :;u 0
>< ~ x Q) o' Q) CD .-+ C CD "0
0 Ol :J CD ..,
I l\) iii 0 (") :J .-+ (Q Q)
I ::::.: -"- .-+ m " 00 .-+ 0 "T\ :J :J ;:;:
a 1J "T\ -t o' (ii. .-+ '<
CI) 01 "T\ 00 - :;u .-+ CD (") Q)
'I a Q) -"- :::! CD CD .-+ c)' Q) :J CD Ol CD '< en
-2! CD' cO- CD Q) x -t
CI) 0 CD .-+ ~ "T\ "0 .-+ -t 0
Q) ~ CD en CD Q) o. Q) Q) c
I Q) - CD .., :J X X ..,
Q3 I (I) 0 00 0
I\.) c CD
I CQ a ::0 tA
Q) ..,
CI) a ~ 0
iii -2! CD
>< 0 tA
CI) ::0
I Q)
CD' ""'i
CI)
II ~ r ~ +::0-
0 0
"6- (") "6- 0
~ ~ ~ - "6-
~ -Efl Q) -Efl - I\.) -Efl U1 ~ -Efl I\.) I\.)
-Efl -
I a a a ~ ~ '< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -Efl
0 ~ 0 0
-"- I\.) -"- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 (J) 0 0
0
0 CD 0 0
.-+
I
I I 0
CD
"0
-u. CD
'6<) ...... :J
-"- -Efl -Efl a.
I -"- (X) ~ ~ -Efl 00 -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl
~a w ~ 0 -Efl ~ C ~ U1 ~ -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl ~
I -
a <0 w ex> U1 ex> "0 -Efl U1 I\.) +::0- I\.) +::0- ex> I\.) ex> -Efl ~
a ...... +::0- ~ I\.) 0 0 I\.) I\.) +::0- 0 ex> U1 U1 ex> 0 U1 ~
I ~a ~ U1 (j) ex> :J ex> (j) ~ U1 I\.) 0 +::0- I\.) 0 ~ I\.)
.1 a 0) ....... 0 ....... ....... .., I\.) 0 ~ U1 ....... W co ....... ex> (j) +::0-
f:) (II ~ 0 ~ (j) Q) ....... 0 ....... I\.) (j) ~ ....... (j) 0 0 I\.)
.-+
...... W 0 W U1 CD (j) 0 w ....... +::0- +::0- +::0- +::0- 0 W (j)
I
I
I '6<) -u.
-"- w -Efl -Efl -Efl
-I\.) ~ ~ ~ -Efl -Efl -Efl ~ -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl
~o ....... U1 ~ I\.) ~ +::0- W ~ I\.) w
0 c 0 -Efl ""+::0- -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl
a -...I 0 w (j) U1 "0 ex> ....... I\.) ex> w (j) ex> (j) ex> co
a (X) I\.) w co ex> 0 CD ....... 0 (j) ~ ....... co U1 ....... (j) 0 .......
I ~a +::0- 0 +::0- U1 :J "0 ex> ....... ....... 0 ex> ex> U1 ex> (j) ....... I\.)
...... CD -
a ex> 0 ex> co .., :J I\.) ....... I\.) ~ I\.) U1 W I\.) (j) ex> I\.)
(II Q)
co 0 co ....... .-+ a. ~ (j) ex> ....... ~ ex> ....... ~ U1 U1 ~
(II ex> 0 ex> 0 CD 00 0 0 (j) co 0 U1 co 0 w ex> I\.)
I
I -u.
(II -Efl -Efl -Efl
N I\.) I\.) -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl ~ -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl -Efl
~ ex> (j) I\.) +::0- ~ W co +::0- ~ ~ W ~ ~ U1
I '6<) '6<) ~ c 0 - - - -Efl
co ~ 0) w ~ I\.) W "0 ~ I\.) ....... (j) ~ ex> U1 ~ +::0- ex> 0
0) tv <0 (j) +::0- I\.) co 0 CD (j) W 0 ~ (j) +::0- ~ (j) (j) U1 ex>
~a ~a (j) U1 ~ +::0- :J "0 0 W ex> U1 0 ex> 0 0 ....... co +::0-
~ CD
"'J tv (X) (j) 0 (j) ....... .., :J co ....... +::0- ....... co ex> w co ""+::0- +::0- (j)
"'J co 0 ~ 0 ~ w Q) a. ....... (j) U1 0 ....... co U1 ....... U1 (j) W
.-+
I 01 "'J 0) I\.) 0 I\.) U1 CD 00 +::0- ~ co (j) +::0- co W +::0- W ~ ex>
I
II
II
II
I
Appendix J: Plan for Transition to RT A and Implementation Schedule
August 2008
Table 1: Issues to be Resolved Prior to Forming a Transit Authority
I
Do the Jurisdictions want to start the transition to a regional organization in advance of legislation authorizing an Authority?
. If a Coordinating Councilor a similar informal joint body is formed prior to creation of an Authority, what powers should it have? What
powers is the City willing to cede?
. Do the jurisdictions want to establish the principles, or the detailed methodology, for cost sharing prior to establishment of an Authority?
. What information do elected officials or key staff want before proceeding?
. What process should be used to develop a Memorandum of Understanding before proceeding to an Authority?
I
Does the County accept the cost of providing service as computed by CTS staff? If not. what would the County need to accept the
cost computations?
I
II
I
I
What topics should be addressed in a Memorandum of Understanding?
. Composition of Board of Directors:
- Even or odd number?
- Elected officials only?
- Contributing jurisdictions only?
- Ex-officio represenlation for JAUNT, UVa, VDRPT?
- Should there be citizen represenlatives?
If so, would they be voting or non-voting?
- Can Board members designate alternates?
. Term of Board members:
- Set time?
- Only while serving in elective office?
. Voting:
- One vote per person on the Board?
- One vole per jurisdiction?
- Votes proportional to population?
- Votes proportional to financial contribution to the Authority?
- Can alternates vote?
II
:1
I.
I
,I
I
. Procedures:
- Measures approved by simple majority of Board?
- Should approval require at least one vote from each jurisdiction?
- One vote per person on the Board?
- How to break ties (if even number of members?)
- Frequency of meetings?
I
. Services:
- Should Ihe Authority strive to establish a fully independent organization or should it obtain some services from the City and County?
- Where is the Authority housed?
. Salaries and Benefits:
- Benefits consistent with City staff package, County staff package, or best of both?
- Would current City staff be transferred to the Authority?
- Would current staff retain seniority and benefits?
- How are pension obligations treated?
I
I
I
6
Steps Required to Establish a Transit Authority
I
a::lUBU!pJO a::lUBU!pJO luaWaaJ5'v' IUaWaaJ5'v' 'IN UO!IBIS!5al 'IN
saA saA saA saA 'IN lln::lW!O 'IN
sJaqwaV'-J sJaqwaV'-J smqwaV'-J sJaqwaV'-J OSl sJaqwaV'-J Aluno~
pJBOS pJBOS pJBOS pJBOS All~ pJBOS Al!~
I
,I
I
!I
~I
I
I
II
'I
I
II
I
!I
I
II
saXBl,
AlJadoJd .
saA saA
II
I
,I
II
I
I
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
saA
alq!ssod
alq!SsOd
saA
saA
~~
~!I%'!l
saA
saA
~
en
CD
:2
o'
CD
o
~
IT
II
!I
I
II
I
saA
saA
~
-I
OJ
:::l
(Jl
"0
o
::l.
!!t
o.
:::l
o
~
Sl
"0 - ~
- a .
c _0,-
cn~o
o l20 3'
9'a:;;
~ 0 0
~5:E
_ CD
'< ....,
(Jl
OJ
o
w
a.
saA
saA
~
c-
o
a
-u
o
:E
~
(Jl
;g
CD
:::l
(')
'<
aa'"
0-1(-,
Q en 0
Q,:E:::l
:::J -......-
Q) g 50
-. -I c:
:::l ...., CD
COwc..
a~o
g ~-g
:::l ....,
Q. a
- o'
:::l
c-
'<
AlJBd IBnp!^!pu! JO a^!padsJad uodn spuadao =
a5BlUB^pBS!0 = _. .
a5BlUB^P'v' = L...l
IBMBJp4l!M JO p04laV'-J
IBMBJp41!M Sl!WJad
IIMlJP!w'
10JlUO~ AJBpuo:>as
10JlUO~ AJBWPd
suo!ll6!1QO 6UIpun:l , 8Jnp,pued
spunJ IBJaua5
AlUnO::l pUB Al!::l UO a::lUB!laJ a::lnpa~
5U1PunJ Mau JOJ IB!lualOd
alq!ssOd
,(P,JOlWlV enu8A8H PUI 6ulxe
'IN UO!IBaJ::l JO p04laV'-J
uOI~
saA spuoq anssl ~ AlJadoJd uwapuo~
sapow UO!lBlJodsUBJlIBUO!5aJ
Ja4l0 U!BlU!BW pUB 'alBJado 'pnJlSuO~
l!SUBJl U1BlU!BW pUB 'alBJado 'pnJlSUO~
SUOp.:Jun:l pUt SJeMO
a^!padsJad IBUO!5a~
SJa410 JOJ Indul A::l!IOd
Aluno~ JOJ Indul A::l!IOd
INn'v'r JOJ UO!lBlUaSaJdaJ la^al A::l!lOd
BAn JOJ UOilBlUaSaJdaJ la^al A::l!IOd
Al!:> JOJ UOilBlUaSaJdaJ la^al A::l!lOd
AlUnO::l UOilBluaSaJdaJ la^al A::l!IOd
~UlweAO
~
a
~
CD
a
r-
CD
co
00'
~
<'
CD
-<
m
:::l
w
c-
eo
c..
::0
-I
)>
suo!}dO 11lUO!}11l!lsuIJO A"llwwns :l ;)NllJ.,
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
,I
I
II
I
.
,
.1
I
I
II
I
'I
I
,I
.
II
II
II
I
,I