|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, August 28, 2007Study Session |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
PURPOSE:
This report discusses and requests City Council direction on a FY 07-08 goal of Council Member Reinke to explore the feasibility of implementing a circulating transit service within the city, and follows up on Council direction and questions that arose from its review earlier this year of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report on the City�s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Circulator Transit Service
One of Council Member Reinke�s goals for this year is to explore the feasibility of operating a �circulating� local transit service. There are several forms that this service could take depending upon the intended purpose and characteristics of the projected ridership. Existing Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) transit services are generally point-to-point along major arterials, while the City�s BurbankBus fixed routes are designed to transport employees between regional transit stations and their places of employment within the city (Exhibit A). BurbankBus also operates the on-demand Senior and Disabled services, which do not operate on fixed routes, and the youth oriented Got Wheels! service, which follows a circular route connecting libraries, parks and other destinations that local teens frequently visit (Exhibit B).
The BurbankBus fixed routes operate solely during weekday commute periods, generally 6:00-10:00 in the morning and 3:00-7:00 in the afternoons. As such, they provide limited opportunities for general circulation within the city. The BurbankBus Senior and Disabled services (formerly BTS) of course are community oriented and provide transportation for shopping, medical appointments, and many other purposes. Got Wheels! also serves the community, providing local transportation for Burbank youth during limited hours.
The BurbankBus system is solely funded by the Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return programs. Revenues are funded by two half-cent sales tax measures approved in 1980 and 1990 to finance public transportation in Los Angeles County. Twenty-five percent of Proposition A revenues and 20% of Proposition C revenues are earmarked for the Local Return Program. Local Return revenues are administered by Metro and are allocated and distributed to jurisdictions in Los Angeles County on a �per capita� basis to be used to develop and/or improve public transit, paratransit, and related transportation infrastructure.
This year�s budget for the BurbankBus program is $3,332,069, $1,275,000 of which covers the services of the operations and maintenance contractor for the fixed route services. Based on the current contract with Southland Transit, the City pays the contractor $33.50/hr. to operate City owned vehicles and $50.56/hr. to operate contractor owned vehicles. The contractor also charges a labor rate of $37.04/hr., plus the cost of parts, for maintenance performed on City owned vehicles. Currently, the City has budgeted slightly more Proposition A and Proposition C funds for this fiscal year than is expected to be received during this year (Exhibit C). Consequently, the cost of the current BurbankBus program requires the use of Proposition A and Proposition C revenues that have been built up from prior years. Based upon Metro revenue projections and the costs of the current transit program, staff estimates that Proposition A reserves will be depleted by FY15-16, and Proposition C reserves by FY18-19.
Aside from the current local transit services provided through the BurbankBus program, other types of local, special purpose circulator services have been implemented in the past. The Burbank Transportation Management Organization (BTMO) attempted to establish a noon-time shuttle service on two separate occasions. This type of service is typically intended to serve as an alternative to automobile usage for workers wishing to access nearby restaurant or shopping destinations during normal or extended lunch periods. They usually operate within a downtown area, or between employment centers and eating or shopping areas.
The BTMO�s first attempt at operating a circulator service was in 1992, when it began operating a shuttle bus to take Media District employees to the Downtown mall and restaurants during lunchtime. This attempt was short lived due to the amount of travel time, which left limited time for dining, and because of the availability of more conveniently located restaurants in the Media District area. In 1997, the BTMO again attempted to implement a noon-time shuttle using a clean air grant to fund free taxi services for its members. That service also failed to attract users and was soon discontinued.
The City operated a circulator service for shoppers during the Christmas holiday season several years ago, at a cost of $10,000, to transport shoppers and other Downtown visitors between parking areas and businesses and attractions. A trolley-style vehicle was leased for this service, which operated evenings and weekends for a one month period. The shuttle was popular and well utilized by the relatively large numbers of Downtown visitors.
The availability of BurbankBus vehicles for a noon-time or Downtown shuttle would help reduce the cost of the service, leaving the costs of the driver and fuel to be funded. Except for early weekday evenings, when fixed-route services are still operating, BurbankBus vehicles would be available for any �off peak� use. The additional cost for consultant-provided drivers to operate a City owned vehicle would currently be approximately $35/hr. The number of buses needed would depend upon the distance or service area, and service frequency. A noon-time shuttle around the Downtown area following, for example, the route of the Downtown fixed route, would cost approximately $35,000 annually for two buses running during a two-and-a-half hour period on weekdays. A Downtown �shoppers� shuttle�, while likely operating on a smaller circulating route, would probably be somewhat more expensive due to a need to operate during a longer period of time and with more frequency.
Throughout the recent transition of the City�s prior demand-response transit service to the current BurbankBus fixed-route program, the Transit Services Task Force and staff have identified serving local residents as an important goal. Given the fixed nature of available funding for transit operations, it has been initially necessary in order to achieve the greatest ridership to initially focus on serving regional commuters. While that is still the case, the existing BurbankBus routes were designed to both serve commuters and maximize access for Burbank residents by providing service where Metro bus service is either infrequent or absent. With the exception of the Media District-Downtown BurbankBus route, which needs additional frequency to maintain service levels, the main commuter transit connections are now in place.
Further expansion opportunities for the local service program would be to either expand the service hours for the existing routes, or to develop a new route(s) that is more focused on local demand, that may also fall outside of the current service hours. Either direction could provide better access for trips within the city, similar to the way Got Wheels! does for Burbank youth. Since the existing routes primarily focus on connecting employment centers and regional transportation nodes, it would probably be better to develop a new route(s) that connects to local destinations like shopping areas, medical facilities, public facilities, and parks and recreational venues, which are more community serving. It would also, of course, need to be routed to residential neighborhoods or residential development so that riders would have access without having to arrange for separate connections or walk long distances.
An example of a route that could be developed to provide shopping, entertainment and dining opportunities is a circulator around the Downtown area, with connections to parking, residential concentrations, the Village area and the Mall, with alternating connections to the Empire Center. The number of vehicles that would be needed would depend upon the length of the route and the desired frequency of service. Twenty minute headways (frequencies) would provide an acceptable service level in most cases, except as a parking shuttle where a ten-minute or less frequency would be needed. The cost per bus would be approximately $35/hr. for the contractor operating a BurbankBus vehicle, or $51 for operating a contractor-provided vehicle. If the shuttle was to overlap with the peak period operations of the commuter routes, when all City owned vehicles are being used, the higher rate would apply.
A longer route covering a wider area, something comparable to the Got Wheels! route, would require three or four buses to provide acceptable headways. Assuming three vehicles operating daily 7:00am-7:00pm, the cost of the service would be approximately $1,300/day for City owned vehicles and $1,850/day for contractor-provided vehicles. If the route were to only operate mid-day, 11:00am-2:00pm, the daily cost would be $315/day for using otherwise idle City owned vehicles.
Staff requests that the Council consider this information and provide direction of possible expansion of the BurbankBus program. Council direction on additional transit service will be agendized for the September meeting of the Transit Services Task Force.
Transportation Demand Management Program Update
In addition to requesting a discussion of potential transit system expansions, the Council has also requested a status update of potential changes to the City�s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinances. Currently, the City requires businesses with 25 or more employees located in the Media District or Burbank Center Plan areas to participate in TDM programs and join the Burbank Transportation Management Organization (TMO). The purpose of these ordinances is to reduce peak period vehicle trips by employees of businesses in these areas to improve congestion and air quality.
The general strategy of this approach is to reduce the demand on the transportation system during peak times as an alterative to building more capacity in the street network. The TDM Ordinances aim to reduce peak period commute trips by 38% by the year 2011, through a year-by-year increase in the reductions required each year (1.9% per year in the Media District and 2.2% per year in the Burbank Center Plan area) until the goal is achieved. Companies participate in rideshare programs facilitated by the Burbank TMO, and report their trips annually to the TMO and the City of Burbank through an annual rideshare survey. These surveys are collected and tabulated to determine if individual companies and the broader TMO areas as a whole are meeting the trip reduction goals prescribed by the TDM Ordinances.
In the spring of 2006, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) completed a study of the Burbank TMO and the City�s TDM Ordinances. This study included a number of recommendations to increase effectiveness of the trip reduction program and its impact on reducing vehicle trips and improving air quality. As a follow up to that study, the Council held a study session in September 2006 to further discuss the NREL recommendations and provide direction to staff on potential modifications to TDM programs. The NREL report and the September 19, 2006 staff report outlining staff�s comments on the recommendations, is attached (Exhibit D).
At that time, the Council directed staff to consider modifications to the TDM Ordinance that would continue the achievements made in reductions to peak hour vehicle trips since the program�s inception in 1991. The TDM Ordinances currently in place for the Media District and Burbank Center Plans are set to sunset by 2011, and there was unanimous support to consider extending these programs past that date. Also, the Council expressed the desire to consider extending TDM requirements and TMO programs to other employment centers in the City such as the Golden State area, and possibly citywide as well. Some Council members expressed a desire to evaluate the current trip reduction goal (currently set at a 38% reduction in peak period commuter trips) and the threshold employment size (currently businesses with 25 or more employees) to determine if these criteria are realistic, especially in light of an expansion of TDM programs to wider geographic areas that may have more difficulty in reducing vehicle trips. Finally, there was some discussion of improving data collection methods, evaluating rates used to estimate trip generation, and increasing reporting requirements to capture different travel periods in an effort to further measure trip reduction trends. All of these comments were received by staff and will be considered as staff develops recommendations for a revised trip reduction program.
A discussion of modifications to the TDM Ordinance is relevant in light of the City�s ongoing efforts to update the General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements. The City�s ability to address mobility and accommodate new growth in the future is affected by the amount of vehicle trips that can be eliminated or shifted to non-peak periods through TDM programs. Because the opportunity to build additional roadway capacity is limited and is expensive, the current proposed Mobility Element policies to improve mobility increasingly rely on expanding alternatives to single-occupancy-vehicle travel and incentivising changes in travel behavior through TDM programs. Staff agrees with the Council�s general direction to continue TDM programs and to potentially expand their geographic areas as a method to maintain Burbank�s mobility, and recommendations on changes to the City�s TDM programs will be included as part of the overall General Plan update process.
In addition to the desire to expand TDM programs, staff sees a critical link between the City�s TDM policies and the current efforts to correlate new development standards to a project�s trip generation. The effectiveness of TDM programs to reduce peak period trips has a direct effect on the amount of development that can be supported by the City�s transportation network. Thus, the amount of development allowed on a particular land parcel can similarly be influenced by the ability for that development to participate in TDM programs. Different land uses located in different geographical areas may have varying abilities to reduce trip generation through use of transit, carpooling, bicycling, and other means. Any traffic-based development control will be more accurate in controlling the effects of traffic caused by new development if it can effectively account for TDM programs on travel behavior.
City staff will be looking at ways to better quantify trip reductions so that these reductions can be accounted for in any new development standard. It is also envisioned that additional development potential could be offered to developments that commit to more aggressive TDM participation and monitoring. In this way, development policy can motivate improvements to alternative transportation systems and still allow for new development potential. Staff feels that a tighter integration between TDM policies and a possible adoption of a traffic-based development control will be required to ensure that both programs meet the goal of maintaining mobility in the future.
Under current City policy, trip reductions due to TDM measures are not considered as part of a new project�s overall trip generation when evaluating these projects for possible traffic impacts. Standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates are used for trip generation and the amount of trips predicted by these rates are then assigned to the street network to determine if project traffic will increase intersection levels of service and require mitigation. For new projects located in one of the City�s TDM areas, reductions due to participation in TDM programs are not accounted for in traffic studies even though these reductions are required by ordinance. In addition, ITE rates themselves do not capture potential trip reductions to a given land use type caused by travel on alternative modes. The result of this policy is a potential over-estimation of trip generation for certain developments that exhibit strong participation in trip reduction programs.
Not accounting for trip reductions due to TDM becomes problematic if the Council were to consider a traffic-based land use control because a project�s size and intensity would become tied to its predicted trip generation. The recent Fehr and Peers review of the proposed TIMS methodology concluded that assumptions about transit accessibility, pedestrian amenities, and the affect of TDM programs need to be quantified and considered as part of any limit to development based on traffic generation. In this case, if TDM measures are not considered for new projects, the resulting permitted development would be lower than what could actually be supported by the transportation network. The City�s long-range traffic model accounts for both regional trip reductions forecasted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional model and the local TDM reductions stipulated through the City�s local TDM Ordinances. Thus, a mechanism should be established to �credit� these reductions back to individual projects so that the predicted generation for individual projects matches the TDM and regional travel patterns assumed as part of the City�s long-range travel demand model. Because a traffic-based development standard could affect land values and the ability to develop land within the City, mechanisms to maximize development potential on a given parcel, while still ensuring that traffic impacts are addressed, are essential to a successful implementation of any traffic-based development standard.
Staff recommends that methods to quantify reductions due to participation in TDM programs be included as part of an update of the City�s traffic study process and its integration with any traffic-based development standard considered by the Council. It may not make sense to credit trip reductions based upon the full trip reduction goal of 38% because individual projects may not meet the goal (due to a specific project�s location, business type, employee makeup, or other factors); however, Council should consider a policy whereby certain reductions are assumed based upon general citywide travel trends, while further reductions are given up to the full 38% in exchange for more aggressive TDM requirements that are agreed upon by the project developer and codified as a condition of project approval. These additional measures could include more aggressive trip monitoring and reporting, providing better transit amenities to employees, providing alternative transportation infrastructure (bicycle facilities, transit stops, etc.), or instilling monetary incentives or penalties to encourage diversion of trips to other modes or other times of day. This approach would better guarantee to the Council that assumed trip reductions would actually occur and would also provide policy incentives to increase the City�s alternative transportation infrastructure. The incentive of more development potential could result in proposed projects that are better integrated into the alternative transportation system and rely less on single-occupancy vehicle travel.
Given the integration between expansion and modification of the City�s TDM programs and TDM Ordinance, and the issues surrounding the General Plan Land Use and Mobility Update (including the consideration of a traffic-based development standard), staff believes that these efforts should be folded together into a unified process. However, if directed, staff could bring back specific changes to the current TDM Ordinance for discussion on a separate schedule if Council believes that there is value in moving forward with a TDM Ordinance discussion apart from the General Plan. Extension of the TDM sunset dates and expansion of the TMO to other geographic areas could be reviewed somewhat independently of the more technical suggestions such as changes in data collection, quantification of actual TDM reductions, reconsideration of the member company threshold and trip reduction goal percentage, and development of procedures to account for TDM measures as part of the project review process. However, as stated above, staff recommends that any changes to the City�s TDM policies and implementation be considered in the context of the broader policy discussion of the Land Use and Mobility Elements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This information is for discussion purposes. Council will subsequently consider specific projects and polices discussed in this report, that may have fiscal implications if implemented or as separate issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider this information and direct staff accordingly.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A BurbankBus Fixed Route System Map Exhibit B BurbankBus Got Wheels! Route Map Exhibit C Propositions A and C Financial Reports Exhibit D September 19, 2006 staff report with NREL report
|