,,41 - AC Transit

,,41 Report No:

Meeting Date

17-234d

January 24, 2018

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF RE PO RTTO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

AC Transit Board of Directors

Michael A. Hursh, General Manager

Transbay Fare Public Hearing

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)

Receive public comment associated with adjustments to the Transbay Fare Schedule for FY2018-19 through FY 2022-23.

BACKG ROUND/RATIONALE

At the December 13, 2017 Board of Directors meeting, staff requested that the Board set publichearings on January 24, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to receive public comment on theproposed Transbay Fare Schedule shown in Attachment lwhich has the following attributes:

e

Decouples the Transbay fare from the localfare. Transbay willno longer be 2 times thelocal fa re

fare changes:o FY 2018-19: An increase of $1.00 (takes effecUuly 1, 20181o FY 2019-20: An increase of $0.50 (takes effect July 1, 2019)o FY 2020-21: No increase

o FY 2021-22: An increase of $0.50 (takes effect July 1, 202ilo FY 2022-23: No increase

Discounted Senior/Youth/Disabled discount of 50 percent(same as current)Monthly pass pricing of 36 times the single-ride fare

e

e

The first increase in the proposed fare schedule would occur on July 1, 2018, to roughlycoincide with the opening of the new Salesforce Transit Center and the introduction of double-decker buses into the District's Transbay fleet. Further fare increases through FY 2022-23would bring Transbay fares more in line with other commuter or Transbay fares on otherregional services.

following the public hearings, staff will return to the Board at the February 28 Board meetingwith a finalpolicy for the Board to consider adopting.

BUDCETARY/FISCAL IMPACT

In developing the Proposed fare Schedule, staff aimed to keep the farebox recovery ratio at thesame or better than the current 24 percent. The proposed fare increase scenarios wouldgenerate an additional$4.2 million by FY 2022-23 which would be used to pay down the capitalfunding commitment to the Salesforce Transit Center. Accordingly, the farebox recovery ratio

1 of 19

Report No. 17-234d of 3

for the District's Transbay service would be approximately(based on various assumptions) 25.5percent by FY 2022-23.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

There are no disadvantages to seeking public input for the proposed Transbay Fare Schedule

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The proposed fare schedule was selected by the Board at the November 24, 2017 meeting,based on input from the Board workshop on August 9, 2017 and Board meetings on September27, November 8, and December1.3, 2017.

This staff report is for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed fare schedulechange included in the public notice. Staff will return to the Board on February 28 for a finaldecision. On February 28 the Board will consider approval of the existing proposal or someportion of the proposal, for example the first two years of the five year proposal. In addition toapproving all or part of the proposed fare structure, if the Board desires to pursue an alternatefare structure, such as a zone-based fare, it could direct staff to gather research and developrecommendations for the Board to consider at a future meeting. The development ot any newfare structure would be subject to further public hearings.

Staff has continued to look at the feasibility of a zone-based fare for Transbay. The currentClipper system can handle charging different fares by route, and future Clipper technology willlikely be take actualdistance into account. Establishment of rational fare zones that work withthe current and future Clipper systems is key, considering Transbay routes vary in length,direction and localmiles versus freeway miles. Staff would need to develop criteria that addressthese variations when creating the zones. Other fare structure considerations to be developedare the 31-day pass price structure, the possibility of "upgrades" from one zone to another,how to price EasyPass, and the additional staff time and resources needed to manage a zone-based fare

An additional issue to be addressed for a zone-based fare is the Title VI equity analysis. Basedon the distribution of minority residents in our District and among Transbay ridership, staff'sinitial analysis implies a zone-based fare would have a disproportionate impact on minoritypopulations. Further analysis needs to be done that may include a plan to dealwith any impactsdiscovered so that implementing a zone-based fare does not violate Title VI.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES

Board Policy 333 -- Fare Policy: Fares, Fare Structure, and Fare IncreasesBoard Resolution No. 13-046Board Resolution No. 16-009

Staff Report 16-047 - Board Policy 328- Fare PolicyStaff Report].7-017 - Scheduled Fare Increase -- July 1, 2017Staff Report 17-030 - Board Po]icy 333, AC Transit EasyPass Fares for 20].7 and 2018Staff Report 17-234 Transbay Fare Schedule AdjustmentStaff Report 17-234a Transbay Fare Schedule AdjustmentStaff Report].7-234b -- Set Transbay Fare Public Hearing

2 of 19

Report No. 17-234d of 3

Staff Report 17-234c --Transbay Fare Public Hearing Upgrade Fares

ATTACHMENTS

1: Proposed Transbay Fare Increase Schedule2: Public Hearing Notice3: Title VI Fare Equity Analysis for Transbay Tomorrow Fare Proposals

4: Summary of Public Comment Received5: Presentation

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Claudia L. Allen, Chief FinancialOfficer

Michele Joseph, Director of Marketing & CommunicationsRobert del Rosario, Director of Service Development & PlanningDenise C. Standridge, GeneralCounselBeverly Green, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community RelationsChris Andrichak, Director of Management & BudgetPrepared by:

3 of 19

SR 17-234dAttachment I

Proposed Transbay Fare Increase Schedule

Upgrade Fares from Local-to-Transbay

Youth/Senior/Disabled Upgrade Fare

Adult Upgrade Fare

1.10 $

2.25 1 $

+ AC Transit Board Policy 333 contains a localfare schedule that only extends to FY 2018-19. Upgrade fares beyond that year will besimilarly based on the difference between the local and transbayfares, but the exact amounts are to be determined when localfareamounts are set in the future.

CategoryCurrent Year

FY 2017-18

Base Adult Single Fare $ 4.50

Yearly Increase

Youth/Senior/Disabled Single Fare $ 2.20

4 of 19

SR 17-234dAttachment 2


PUBLIC HEARING NOTICEAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District

Proposed Transbay Fare Schedule

Notice is hereby given that the AC Transit Board of Directors will hold Public Hearings on Wednesday,January 24, 2018, at 3:00 p.m and 6:00 p.m. at the AC Transit General Offices, Second Floor BoardRoom, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, to receive public comment on a proposed adjustment inthe Transbay Fare Schedule as more specifically described below under "PROJECT DESCRIPTION"

The proposed adjustment in the Transbay Fare Schedule is detailed on AC Transit's website at}aflaflac:aslranfl!:efg, and available in printed format at the District's General Offices, located at 1600franklin Street, Oakland, California, and at a variety of other locations, including main county and cityoffices as well as the main libraries located within the District's service area. For information on exact

[ocations where the documents are avai]ab]e in your specific area, please te]ephone(510) 89]--7175.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The District is proposing a new fare schedule for Transbay Service for FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23.The new schedule would increase the Transbay fare by $1.00 on July 1, 2018, by$0.50 on July 1, 2019,and $0.50 on July 1 2021. Disabled, Senior, and Child fares would be 50% of the full fare, and monthlypasses would be 36 times the single fare. For transfers from local to Transbay service, the "upgrade"fares will increase as the difference between the two fare prices Increases. If approved by the Board ofDirectors, the first fare increase in the new Transbay Fare Schedule willbe on July 1, 2018.

Your Comments Are Invited

Public Comment on the proposed Transbay Fare Schedule is invited either in writing or at the publichearings scheduled for 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at the AC TransitGenera[Offices, Second F]oor Board Room,].600 Franklin Street, Oak]and, Ca]ifornia. The public is urgedto submit written comments by letter, facsimile, or email, which must be received no later than theclose of the hearing on January 24, 2018. Written comments will receive the same attention as verbalcomments received at the Public Hearing. Please address written comments to the AC Transit Board ofDirectors, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, 94612; by facsimile at(510) 891-7157; or by [email protected]. Comments may also be submitted by voicemailat(510) 891-7201. For Spanish-language comments, call(510) 891-7291; and for Chinese-language comments, call(510) 891-7292

Meeting site is wheelchair accessible

Spanish and Chinese interpreters will be available at the meeting. Upon request, a sign language

interpreter or a foreign language interpreter for languages other than those mentioned in this notice willbe present at the hearing. Foreign language interpreters can be provided, if needed. Please contact theDistrict Secretary's Office at (5101 891-720]. no later than 72 hours in advance of the hearing to makearrangements. For TDD for hearing impaired, ca]1 711, Ca]ifornia Re]ay Service, and specify (510) 89].-4700

5 of 19

.41Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

Transit to the Hearing Site

All AC Transit bus lines serving downtown Oakland stop within walking distance of the public hearingsite. For trip-planning, visit www.actransit.org or call 511 (and say, "AC Transit"). The site can also bereached via BART to the 19th St. Oakland station.

Please do not wear scented products to the meeting

6 of 19

SR 17-234dAttachment 3

TITLE VI FARE EQUITV ANALYSIS FOR TRANSBAY TOMORROW FARE PROPOSALS

On January 24, 2018 the AC Transit Board of Directors will hold a public hearing to receive comment about farechange proposa[s for Transbay service. Board Po]icy 5]-8, "Tit]e V] and Environmenta] Justice Service Review andCompliance Report Policy," directs staff to undertake a fare equity analysis for allfare change proposals regardlessof the amount of increase or decrease. The purpose of the analysis is to determine, prior to implementing changesto the fare system, whether the planned changes will have a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, ornationalorigin, or if low-income populations will bear a disproportionate burden of the changes. The fare equityanalysis also considered how District staff carried out public engagement to ensure that populations protected byTitle VI and associated regulations had sufficient opportunity to hear about the public hearing process and toprovide public comment. A detailed description of these public engagement efforts, and the public commentreceived so far, is contained in Attachment 4 to this staff report.

The analysis found that the fare proposals do not carry any discriminatory effects on Title Vl-protectedpopulations. As perthe Board Policy, this fare equity analysis must be presented to the Board of Directors fortheirconsideration and approvalbefore the fare proposalmay be implemented.

Methodology

In order to conduct the fare equity analysis, staff generated an "Average Fare," i.e. the average cost oflinked one-way trips for each fare category and for each demographic group, using rider survey data. Because the last system-wide rider survey was conducted in 2012, staff undertook a rider survey aimed at Transbay riders during thesummer of 2017 specifically for this purpose.

Staff used the following assumptions to generate the average fare

l

2

3

4

No one jor only a very smallnumberl rides more than one AC Transit localbus to get to or fromtheir Transbay ride. Because one free local bus ride is included in the Transbay fare, the averagefare is therefore made up of the Transbay fare paid by allindividualriders.Because there are no Clipper discounts for Transbay fares, nor are any proposed, the analysisassumes everyone within a fare category (i.e. Adult, Youth, Senior, Disabled) pays the same fareregardless of how they pay.The analysis assumes that monthly pass holders use Transbay service 36 times per month. Thisnumber was chosen because the Transbay monthly pass cost is based on 36 times the single ride

Staff used$50,000 as the cut-off for low-income status in order to assess impacts on low-incomeriders; that is, anyone who reported their household income as under $50,000 was consideredlow-income for the purpose of this analysis.

fare

The proposal before the Board recommends only one set of fare changes, consisting of an increase in the nextthree out of five years; no changes are proposed for FY 2020-21 or for FY 2022-23. Each survey response wasassigned a fare based on the category and instrument used. For example, a youth cash payer was assigned a fareof $2.20, an adult Clipper payer was assigned a fare of $4.50, and so forth. Since there are not many discountedfare instruments for Transbay and there aren't many who pay a non-adult fare, the average for all respondentsl$4.38) is close to the $4.50 base fare. This also means that the proposed percentage changes do not vary toomuch between different groups.

The results of the average fare analysis were then assessed to see if the fare proposals would result in a disparateimpact on the basis of race, color, or nationalorigin, or if low-income populations would bear a disproportionateburden of the proposals.

I of 2

7 of 19

Findings

The analysis found that the proposed fare changes affected people of color slightly more than non-Hispanicwhites; this difference was 0.2% or less. The proposed fare changes affected low-income people slightly morethan not low-income people as well; the difference between the effects was 0.26% or less.

Average Fare Percent Change

FY 17/18.18/19

FY 18/19- I FY 20/2119/20 21/22

People ofColor

22.48% 8.42%

Race/

Ethnicity

White, notLatino/Hispanic

22.27% 8.92%

Difference between Minority & Non-Minority: 0.20%

22.38%

22.12%

0.26%

0.07%

9.14%

9.06%

0.09%

Less than$50,000More than$50,000

Income

Difference between Low-Income/Not Low-Income

According to Board Policy 518, "the measure of disparate impact involves a comparison of impacts borne byminority populations compared to impacts borne by non-minority populations.[ ...] When minority popu]ationsor riders as a whole willexperience a 15% jor more) greater adverse effect than that borne by the non-minoritypopulations or riders, such changes will be considered to have a disparate impact." The measure ofdisproportionate burden involves a similar comparison for low-income and not low-income populations. For eachyear of proposed change, none of the differences between protected and non-protected riders approached 15%,so there is no finding of disparate impact or disproportionate burden.

Staff investigated the results for statisticalsignificance and found them to be valid. The smallsample size for thelow-income group (n=1081 yielded a 9.5% margin of error, however, given that the largest difference betweenlow-income and not low-income populations is only 0.26%, the range of possible results is -9.24 to +9.76%, stillless than the 15% board policy threshold. This supports a conclusion of no discriminatory effects.

Conclusions

Because the differences between the effects of the fare proposals on protected and non-protected populationswere substantially less than the thresholds established in Board Policy 518 for finding discriminatory effect, andtaking into account the public engagement process undertaken and public comment received, this analysis foundthat the fare policies willhave no disparate impact or disproportionate burden.

2of 2

8 of 19

,,41 SR 17-234dAttachment 4


SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED

To be provided at January 24th, 2018, Board Meeting.

9 of 19

aeH0a>E©0L0.Eng>

\

.Qn£aLb-

!F

:p

I'i f pl

r-?.rll nt n .at nE n B

H erin a

--+

b B h b: E

RL.B

L.h.A.bh.I

- b

B d

bi h A

h P

I H K H

nCF-0C0l

0E0<

d"}

10 of 19

0'u=m

'0£H£QEQ.

00>QQ

'u£H

n£0H0

Q>H£0nQQ.

Qa

£QEQu)

£=EE0'=

Q

8 'E2

>Q

L- \+

-'u

o.

q+-

'U

s.. U

)

t .g .!

Q8.

.g co '8

Q

.£ .E

L.

3nCF-CD

00C0()0E<

ee

11 of 19

0

0 '0

QCH-0C00a)Ecu

<

a'u£©a<

#

\e

'J'?1l

12 of 19

0>0

03m00n030n0C030C

06'n.B00EPCF-

0n.CD3m

l

==

80C0()C

DCQF-00CD

0H

n0H'uQD00H:0>\

H.Qa£aLb-

CB0CD

cu

cug0LL0mm

030E0m

l

EM

CD

CD

QCF-CD

0()QC000Ea<

ee

ee

ee

e

I +

-' '+

H

--lp

a'

13 of 19

0C00Ccua)>0E

C03C0a'EQ

l

0l00CD

CD

CDl

0B

L0£QB£F-©00a©a

aC00g0E

Q0CaB00CLH

00Ca)CCB

C0

.2 gto

=

nCb-0QC0c)l

0E<

<e

e

@IF

N

14 of 19

nH00Q£a.£QLH>\

H.Qa£aLb-'uQn0Q0La.

cnCD

0C0cu00CCD

B3a)0=

L- -bu

$ 'Ea)3a)

2C0E 'a

&+

. --

g 8'

cu ...3nCF-0cuC0()0E0<

m15 of 19

0='u©.£0a>>\

.Q£b-'uQ0Q0LQ.

032a)

2'a)

a

a>=Ca)>\

C0'ua)a>£B0e>\

.Q£h-

CBa)

aa)L- L

o .gB

) a

g 'g>

, agcu >..

'B L

nCQH-0()C0()0E<

d}

CD

gXLHC0'EE3Qa)0a)0a)3(Da)

LLa)09n.#

a)Ca)a)

2a)a)£a)a):E0cn

CEg0b0Ca)a)

a

Q. ,-<

1-- o

a)'0E

f') c:

16 of 19

a. 8

d .8

a)<()Caa000CDCCaLL0 B

Q. n:

0)<£©©000CCQLL00 B

I'\I'b0)©0tOCa0Ca3a©m0n B

EQ.

e00gn0'a0mn£h-<

0 'u

'o 8

c'\-i d

H &

==

0£-

'B

0.c

>\

o

'u -n 'acg'u F

Zh-IHluE>b-Z

=Qr'

O

c= b

'=

0

s:g 'g

.£ o

H<

E00'0a0m00LLC00

Z<lu=.Jm

=g'u0QZ0B

3nCgF-CD0C0()0EQ<

E=0Q

.

17 of 19

CD

a0C0EE00a>C00E0C0CD

30C00<

Ca.c ©

''lu .F

.

a--

-+0

(N.E

a

'0 0

x '=

ai fo .c

.£: -h

'

c:. +o

001'-

0)©

0gQ0'uH0m=Hh-<

l

0tO

=Q£L=g'uQQZQB

}-a)

x-- ('N

o0 0) 0)

. C

N (N

o I '-

12 a ' a ' ;

CD

Caa0CCCa.0

E=0h-Em3

00CCaLL B

0)<Cnm0

EnCF-0C0cs©E<

©e

.C

Q. .C

18 of 19

,,41 - AC Transit

Documents

Transcript of ,,41 - AC Transit