Related Links

Agenda Item # 9

BOARD MEMORANDUM

BACKGROUND

At the July 12, 2006 Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) meeting, under the Chairperson’s Report, the CTA requested Member Tamez email of July 8, 2006 (Attachment A) be discussed at the regular meeting scheduled for September 13, 2006.  Chairperson Morrow also asked if staff could meet with Member Tamez to clarify some of the items raised in the email.  The request was denied.  This memorandum responds to some of the issues raised in the attached email and requests clarification where necessary.

DISCUSSION Item #                                                           

1. Member Tamez email states:

The National Transit Database (NTD) memo from Valley Transit Authority of Santa Clara County (VTA) dated June 30, 2006 lists a position called Paratransit Manager.   The title of this position is not familiar to the CTA, what duties are completed under this title?

RESPONSE:

There is no position at VTA with the title “Paratransit Manager.”   The Accessible Services Program Manager supervises VTA’s accessible services and paratransit programs.   The reference in the NTD memo is a typo and should reflect “Accessible Services Program Manager.”

2. Member Tamez email states:

It appears under the same memo, that the full cost of several positions listed were charged to Paratransit (the Accessible Services Representative; the Senior Management Analyst; and the Management Analyst, respectively).   That is not appropriate as they also performed functions for fixed route and should have allocated their time correctly.

RESPONSE:

VTA records the costs associated with accessible services activities performed by these positions to the Accessible Services department cost center.   Actual time spent by staff on tasks or assignments directly related to the paratransit program is reflected on employee time cards and charged to the paratransit program.   The charges being referenced in Member Tamez email reflect actual time spent by staff on paratransit activities, not the number of hours that would relate to a full-time equivalent (FTE).

3. Member Tamez email states:

“The problem remains that there is not adequate public scrutiny of the growth in staffing, departmental costs, year-over-year; no one on CTA has ever seen a mission statement for the various departments nor is CTA given any annual objectives for each department along with measurable and quantifiable results.   These are not and have never been reported to the CTA but, must routinely be reported to CTA and the general public.

In short, CTA never complained about the NTD numbers before because VTA staff never presented the data!  The public cannot complain about high costs within public agencies if the data is not shared directly with such committees and the general public.”

RESPONSE:

CTA receives a formal budget presentation as a regular part of the VTA Biennial Budget process.   The last presentation took place on May 11, 2005 when the FY2006 & FY2007 preliminary budget was reviewed by this Committee.           

Prior to the budget presentation, a copy of the preliminary biennial budget was distributed to the Committee.   The budget document contains company-wide as well as division information including but not limited to the following:

• Staffing Levels (current and proposed)
• Departmental/Divisional Costs "Year Over Year"
• VTA's Vision & Mission Statement
• Departmental/Divisional Accomplishments (from prior years)
• Dept/Div Goals/Objectives, Projects & Efforts Planned for upcoming years                      

Please note that the budget process includes document distribution and presentations to all five Advisory Committees, all three Standing Committees, and community outreach meetings held at various locations throughout the County.   Written responses to all questions raised during these meetings are forwarded to the Board of Directors so they can be made aware of both committee and community concerns.

Additionally, VTA’s Board of Directors holds a public workshop to consider all revenue sources and expenditure requests prior to final budget adoption.   At this workshop there is considerable discussion among the Board Members as well as another opportunity for public input.

Staff prepares VTA’s submission of the National Transit Database Annual Report according to NTD’s prescribed methodology.   NTD staff then review our submission and may pose questions that result in adjustments.   When NTD publishes its report, the numbers become final and public.

4. a)   Member Tamez email states: 

“The memos from Ms. Stark (Controller) and Mr. Contreras (CFO) suggest that they are not very familiar with the difference between Accessible Services and Paratransit.   As such, they appear to not understand or greatly question allocation of staff properly to different programs. This suggests a major communication breakdown between the operational and financial sides of VTA.”

RESPONSE:

Fiscal Resources does not determine which staff members are assigned to which programs.  This decision is left to the division responsible for managing said program.   In the case of the Accessible Services Department, the Operations Division determines how Accessible Services staff is assigned to programs.

VTA’s Accessible Services Department takes a lead role to ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities receive high-quality and cost-effective accessible bus, light rail and paratransit services.   The Department reviews and assures adherence to the Americans with Disabilities Act, resolves customer service issues, provides outreach to seniors and persons with disabilities, and provides departments throughout VTA with education, technical assistance and support to ensure services are accessible.

For fixed-route services, some of the main tasks the Accessible Services Department is responsible for include:

• Reviewing requirements of the ADA for bus and light rail services. 
• Providing technical support for the development of programs, policies, procedures and facilities to ensure compliance with the ADA. 
• Developing policies and procedures on accessibility issues.
• Providing complaint resolution for issues regarding accessibility.
• Administering VTA’s participation in the SF Bay Area Regional Transit Connection Discount Card Program, which includes community outreach efforts.
• Coordinating with VTA Construction and Operations staff to address ADA and other accessibility issues in the design requirements that apply to new facility construction and vehicle procurement.

For customers who are not able to use VTA’s fixed-route services, the Accessible Services Department is responsible for administering VTA’s ADA Paratransit program, which includes:

• Developing and monitoring of the paratransit operating and capital budget.
• Providing oversight of the paratransit contracts.
• Developing policies for paratransit eligibility, fares and service provisions.
• Providing customer services interactions and resolution.
• Assessing federal and state legislation and its impact on VTA’s paratransit services. 
• Overseeing grant-funding agreements for the Job Access Reverse Commute program.
• Administering the FTA Section 5310 capital funding program for the purchase of vehicles and equipment to support transportation services provided to seniors and persons with disabilities.

4. b)         Member Tamez email states:

“Furthermore, Ms. Stark indicated that some consultant advised VTA to follow certain accounting methods and so VTA did without much critical thought.   It now appears the Consultant's implemented methods have disproportionately taxed Paratransit.”

RESPONSE:           

Staff respectfully requests Member Tamez clarify the context of his reference.   Please advise which consultant and project is being referenced as well as the parameters surrounding the conversation.   Staff has been unable to find this reference in previous meeting minutes or memos and would appreciate any clarification.

5. a)   Member Tamez email states:

“. . it’s not clear that paratransit has benefited from Marketing Dep’t. efforts . . .”

RESPONSE:           

Marketing has produced printed materials for paratransit including but not limited to the brochure about the new application process, the application itself, and the Paratransit User’s Guide.   Marketing has also devoted staff resources to media relations related to paratransit.   Marketing is also updating VTA’s website and has created a subcommittee composed of CTA members and VTA staff to ensure that the website meets the needs of the disabled community.

5. b)   Member Tamez email states:

“CTA is also concerned that VTA must be held accountable for ongoing reductions in all of these costs (General and Administrative costs and other apportioned costs as well as costs for direct staffing, etc.) added to the Paratransit Program.”

RESPONSE:

VTA is held accountable for any possible reductions in all cost areas.   The budget process alone goes through approximately twelve public reviews  (including the five Advisory and three Standing Committees) prior to Board consideration for adoption.  Additionally, the NTD report must pass review from the external auditors as well as NTD’s own process.  In reference to indirect charges, VTA's indirect cost allocation plan has been reviewed and approved by the FTA.

5. c) Member Tamez email states:

“The financial management at VTA should not dismiss the concerns of CTA and public community members by simply stating that VTA stands behind their apparently flawed accounting methods to justify these high costs.“

RESPONSE:

Staff respectfully requests Member Tamez provide specifics as to when and how VTA’s financial management dismissed either CTA or public community members’ concerns.

5. d)   Member Tamez email states:

“Lastly, in terms of the $2.4 million cited by VTA, CTA would like to have this number broken out in terms of included expenses, line item, etc. that comprise the $2.4 million being charged, by direct and indirect costs, to the paratransit program.”

RESPONSE:

Please note that the referenced $2.4 million (FY 2005) consists of indirect costs only, which are allocated according to VTA’s Indirect Cost Allocation Plan as approved by the FTA.           

Labor Costs                     $1.79

Materials & Supplies          0.16

Services                             0.19

Utilities                                0.06

Insurance                           0.23

Miscellaneous                    0.05

                                         $2.48 M

                                          ====

6. a)   Member Tamez email states:

“CTA is demanding an action plan to see all of the VTA costs charged to Paratransit get reduced.”

RESPONSE:

Staff recommends that CTA continues to participate in VTA’s budget process to influence the amount of resources devoted to paratransit.   In general, the budget process is the best time and place to review revenues and expenditures.   Any recommendations brought forth by the CTA are carried to the Board of Directors for consideration prior to budget adoption.  CTA will have the opportunity to review and comment on the FY 2008 and FY 2009 Proposed Biennial Budget in the Spring of 2007.

6. b)  Member Tamez email states:

“The information requested is to list ALL charges that are applied to paratransit cost, various staff and departmental charges, Marketing, Legal, management, administration and list the 8% flat cost charged to the paratransit budget by line item to the CTA.  This would provide the public with a better understanding of why VTA is able to add 8% of the entire budget onto the paratransit program.”

RESPONSE:

i)  Staff respectfully request clarification of the “8% flat cost” referenced in Member Tamez email.   Please provide the source and application of the “8% flat cost” as well as the “8% of the entire budget” referenced as being added to the paratransit program.

ii)   The following schedule includes amounts, by line item, as reflected in the Fiscal Year 2005 National Transit Data Report, Demand Response Purchased Transportation Section.

Labor Costs                                  $  2.50

Services                                           0.83

Other Materials & Su                       0.16

Utilities                                             0.06

Insurance (Casualty & Liability)      0.23

Miscellaneous Expenses                           0.06

                                                                                      $30.13 M

                                                                                      =====

An even more detailed breakdown is provided in Attachment B, which includes a line item breakdown of both direct and indirect costs by division and department.

Indirect costs are allocated company-wide to all activities and provide the following services:

Administrative Services

Provides typical human resources services such as labor relations, equal opportunity programs, risk management, employee health & safety, etc.

Fiscal Resources

Provides financial accounting and reporting, financial planning,   compliance review, disbursements (payroll and accounts payable), contracts and materials management, etc.

General Counsel

Provides legal advice and counsel to all facets of VTA

General Manager’s Office

Provides the day-to-day management guidance of VTA as well as policy development, strategic planning, intergovernmental and business relations.

Planning & Marketing Departments

Provides public information, community outreach, media relations, etc.

6. c)   Member Tamez email states:

“ . . there should be a correction to file on what the changes would be in terms of the impact on Paratransit statistics like cost per trip or cost per hour.”

RESPONSE:

As a matter of procedure, staff maintains notes relative to changes in reporting requirements and/or data collection procedures.   Staff can and will comply with the above request to note any impact on reported statistics.

7. a)  Member Tamez email states:

“CTA believes there is a lack of accountability and oversight of numbers being reported by VTA to NTD,  Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), federal and local governments, etc.  As such, CTA insists on reviewing and commenting on the preliminary numbers before they are submitted to third parties like FTA so that we can question the values and the methods.  After all this is public information, we are entitled to review it.”

RESPONSE:

As a public agency, VTA is subject to annual audits conducted by an independent public accounting firm selected by and responsible directly to the Board of Directors.   In reference to the NTD report, these same independent auditors review and certify the NTD report which is then subject to NTD’s own oversight and review process.   VTA must comply with NTD’s prescribed reporting methodology.  After both procedures are completed, the NTD determines when this particular report becomes public information (usually after completing the process for all agencies).

Staff would be happy to provide a copy of the NTD report to CTA for their review at the same time it is submitted for NTD’s review process.   This should provide adequate time for all parties to review the report as the NTD review process takes several months and the report is not finalized until the NTD process is closed. 

7. b)    Member Tamez email states:

“When VTA put together the so-called Paratransit Improvement Plan, it was geared at increasing rider fares, making eligibility more difficult (to keep people off), and reducing Paratransit Provider costs, it's not clear that the plan also included VTA tightening their own belt.”

RESPONSE:

VTA implemented a number of cost containment strategies due to the well documented fiscal challenges resulting from the dramatic economic downturn beginning in late 2000.   These cost containment strategies included reducing fixed-route services by 17% in three phases between July 2002 and January 2004; reducing reliance on contracted services and consultant contracts; reducing the capital improvement program; and implementing a variety of organizational efficiency changes.   Altogether, VTA eliminated 697 positions (24% of its total work force) between Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2007.

Within this broad cost containment program, VTA proposed and implemented several measures outlined in the Paratransit Improvement Plan.   These measures were aimed at curbing the double-digit increase in paratransit costs each year from 1998 through 2002.   While 17% of fixed-route services were cut, the cost containment program allowed for the continued provision of a high level of paratransit service to those who needed it. See Attachment C.

This concludes staffs’ response to some of the issues raised in Member Tamez email.   Regarding   the remaining open items where additional information has been requested (see above items numbered 4.b); 5.c); and 6.b)i), staff will respond as quickly as possible upon receipt of the requested clarification.

ATTACHMENT A

-----Original Message-----

From: Randy Tamez [mailto:r_tamez@pacbell.net]

Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 11:18 PM

To: "David GrantLau Samuel"

Cc: jon.kessler-asm.ca.gov; Sunshine.Borelli-bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us;

District4-sanjoseca.gov

Subject: Financial Agenda Item Request

Hello All,

The following is an agenda item request for the Committee For Transit

Accessibility (CTA) to review and discuss financial information.

1.    The National TransitDatabase (NTD) memo from Valley Transit

Authority of Santa Clara County (VTA) dated June 30, 2006 lists a

position called Paratransit Manager.   The title of this position is

not familiar to the CTA, what duties are completed under this title?

2.   It appears under the same memo, that the full cost of several

positions listed were charged to Paratransit (The Accessible Services

Representative; the Senior Management Analyst; and the Management

Analyst, respectively.)   That is not appropriate as they also

performed functions for fixed route and should have allocated their

time correctly.

3.   The problem remains that there is not adequate public scrutiny of

the growth in staffing, departmental costs, year-over-year; no one on

CTA has ever seen a mission statement for the various departments nor

is CTA given any annual objectives for each department along with

measurable and quantifiable results.   These are not and have never

been reported to the CTA but, must routinely be reported to CTA and

the general public.

In short, CTA never complained about the NTD numbers before because

VTA staff never presented the data!   The public cannot complain about

high costs within public agencies if the data is not shared directly

with such committees and the general public.

4.   The memos from Ms. Stark (Controller) and Mr. Contreras (CFO)

suggest that they are not very familiar with the difference between

Accessible Services and Paratransit.   As such, they appear to not

understand or greatly question allocation of staff properly to

different programs. This suggests a major communication breakdown

between the operational and financial sides of VTA.   Furthermore, Ms.

Stark indicated that some consultant advised VTA to follow certain

accounting methods and so VTA did without much critical thought.   It

now appears the Consultant's implemented methods have

disproportionately taxed Paratransit.

5.   Ms. Stark and Mr. Contreras previous to the email about direct

staff charging to Paratransit, provided a similar, difficult to

understand, memo in reference to the $2.4 million in General and

Administrative Costs charged to paratransit.   The CTA and disability

community are not convinced that the generic methods being used are

the most equitable and appropriate since, for example, it's not clear

that Paratransit has benefited from Marketing Dep't. efforts, yet

Paratransit is helping pay for them.   CTA is also concerned that VTA

must be held accountable for ongoing reductions in all of these costs

(General and Administrative costs and other apportioned costs as well

as costs for direct staffing, etc.) added to the Paratransit

Program.   The financial management at VTA should not dismiss the

concerns of CTA and public community members by simply stating that

VTA stands behind their apparently flawed accounting methods to

justify these high costs.   Lastly, in terms of the $2.4 million cited

by VTA, CTA would like to have this number broken out in terms of

included expenses, line time, etc. that comprise the $2.4 million

being charged, by direct and   indirect costs, to the paratransit

program.   CTA wants to know what expenses are specifically included

and if the Paratransit Program, and hence the disabled residents

using the service, are truly getting an equivalent benefit from VTA's

added costs.

6. CTA is demanding an action plan to see all of the VTA costs

charged to Paratransit get reduced.   The information requested is to

list ALL charges that are applied to paratransit cost, various staff

and departmental charges, Marketing, Legal, management,

administration and list the 8% flat cost charged to the paratransit

budget by line item to the CTA.   This would provide the public with a

better understanding of why VTA is able to add 8% of the entire

budget onto the paratransit program.

Furthermore, VTA says they cannot change what they sent out to NTD in

the past, even if it was incorrect.   If so, there should be a

correction to file on what the changes would be in terms of the

impact on Paratransit statistics like cost per trip or cost per hour.

7.   CTA believes there is a lack of accountability and oversight of

numbers being reported by VTA to NTD,   Metropolitan Transportation

Commission (MTC), federal and local governments, etc.   As such, CTA

insists on reviewing and commenting on the preliminary numbers before they are submitted to third parties like FTA so that we can question the values and the methods.   After all this is public information, we are entitled to review it.   VTA should welcome such review as a public agency.

VTA Management's response to recently-raised financial issues by the

CTA has been provided in memos sent by VTA financial management that

do not offer the full picture which would have included the overall

direct and indirect costs, the labor pools, the time allocation for

each position, and the expenses by line time or cost element inside

of the large General and Administration cost allocation. When VTA put

together the so-called Paratransit Improvement Plan, it was geared at

increasing rider fares, making eligibility more difficult (to keep

people off), and reducing Paratransit Provider costs, it's not clear

that the plan also included VTA tightening their own belt.   Hence, it

is clear that VTA needs better oversight and accountability by CTA,

and the public as well as the VTA Board of Directors and the

government funders.

I'm requesting a discussion of the above issues and concerns be

placed on our September calendar.

Thank you,

Randy Tamez

CTA Member

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Fiscal Year 2005 National Transit Data Report

Demand Response Purchased Transportation Section

Indirect labor costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $780,000, indirect  labor costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $520,000, indirect labor costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $30,000, indirect labor costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $80,000, indirect labor costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $380,000, Total indirect labor costs $1,790,000, Contractor labor costs totaled $0, Operations Division Accessible Services Department Labor Costs totaled $460,000, Operations Division Administration labor costs totaled $250,000, Total  Operations Division labor costs $710,000, Grand total of labor costs $2,500,000.

Indirect services costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $80,000, indirect services costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $40,000, indirect services costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $0, indirect services costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $20,000, indirect services costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $50,000, Total indirect services costs $190,000, Contractor services costs totaled $0, Operations Division Accessible Services Department Services Costs totaled $630,000, Operations Division Administration services costs totaled $10,000, Total Operations Division services costs $640,000, Grand total of services costs $830,000.

Indirect other materials and supplies costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $160,000, indirect other materials and supplies costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $0, indirect other materials and supplies costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $0, indirect other materials and supplies costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $0, indirect other materials and supplies costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $0, Total indirect other materials and supplies costs $160,000, Contractor other materials and supplies costs totaled $0, Operations Division Accessible Services Department Services Costs totaled $0, Operations Division Administration other materials and supplies costs totaled $0, Total Operations Division other materials and supplies costs $0, Grand total of other materials and supplies costs $160,000.

Indirect utilities costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $60,000, indirect utilities costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $0, indirect utilities costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $0, indirect utilities costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $0, indirect utilities costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $0, Total indirect utilities costs $60,000, Contractor utilities costs totaled $0, Operations Division Accessible Services Department utilities costs totaled $0, Operations Division Administration utilities costs totaled $0, Total Operations Division utilities costs $0, Grand total of utilities costs $60,000.

Indirect Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $230,000, indirect Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $0, indirect Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $0, indirect Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $0, indirect Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $0, Total indirect Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs $230,000, Contractor Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs totaled $0, Operations Division Accessible Services Department Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs totaled $0, Operations Division Administration Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs totaled $0, Total Operations Division Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs $0, Grand total of Insurance (Casualty and Liability) costs $230,000.

Indirect Purchased Transportation costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $0, indirect Purchased Transportation costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $0, indirect Purchased Transportation costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $0, indirect Purchased Transportation costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $0, indirect Purchased Transportation costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $0, Total indirect Purchased Transportation costs $0, Contractor Purchased Transportation costs totaled $26,290,000, Operations Division Accessible Services Department Purchased Transportation costs totaled $0, Operations Division Administration Purchased Transportation costs totaled $0, Total Operations Division Purchased Transportation costs $0, Grand total of Purchased Transportation costs $26,290,000.

Indirect Miscellaneous Expenses costs for the Administrative Services Division totaled $20,000, indirect Miscellaneous Expenses costs for the Fiscal Resources Division totaled $10,000, indirect Miscellaneous Expenses costs for the General Counsel’s Office totaled $0, indirect Miscellaneous Expenses costs for the General Manager’s Office totaled $10,000, indirect Miscellaneous Expenses costs for Planning and Marketing Departments totaled $10,000, Total indirect Miscellaneous Expenses costs $50,000, Contractor Miscellaneous Expenses costs totaled $0, Operations Division Accessible Services Department Miscellaneous Expenses costs totaled $0, Operations Administration Miscellaneous Expenses costs totaled $10,000, Total Operations Division Miscellaneous Expenses costs $10,000, Grand total of Miscellaneous Expenses costs $60,000.

Total indirect costs for the Administrative Services Division were  $1,330,000, Total indirect costs for the Fiscal Resources Division were $570,000, Total indirect costs for the General Counsel’s Office were $30,000, Total indirect costs for the General Manager’s Office were $110,000, Total indirect costs for Planning and Marketing Departments were $440,000, Grand Total of indirect costs $2,480,000 Total Contractor costs were $26,290,000, Operations Division Accessible Services Department total costs were $1,090,000, Operations Administration total costs were $270,000 Operations Division total costs were $1,360,000, Grand total of costs $30,130,000.

Notes:

Indirect cost departments are as follows:

Administrative Services, which includes human resources, professional development, labor relations, equal opportunity programs, risk management, substance abuse, and employee health and safety.

Fiscal Resources, which includes treasury and financial planning, financial accounting, compliance review, disbursements, and contracts and materials management.

General Counsel’s Office, which includes VTA’s legal staff providing legal advice and counsel to all VTA departments.

General Manager’s Office, which includes the General Manager and staff covering government affairs, board secretary, copy center, and record management.

Planning and Marketing, which includes marketing, public information, community outreach, ridership, and revenue.

Labor costs includes wages and fringe benefit costs such as pension, employer payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, health insurance, etc.

Services includes data processing services, professional services, advertising fees, and external printing and reproduction.

Other Materials and Supplies includes computer hardware and software, parts, materials and supplies, and safety supplies.

Utilities includes cost for telephones (land lines) and cell phones.

Insurance (Casualty and Liability) includes property and liability insurance costs.

Purchased Transportation includes contract cost for purchased transportation services

Miscellaneous Expenses includes various items such as books, subscriptions, office supplies, legal notices and publications, education and training, postage, etc.

Attachment B - Prepared By: G. Salandanan, Fiscal Resources Manager

ATTACHMENT C

VTA Paratransit Ridership and Cost History

Fiscal Year 1997-1998 through Fiscal Year 2002-2003

Fiscal Year 1997-1998

Passenger Trips 528,948

Percent Change 18.6 percent

Average Weekday Trips 1,861

Percent Change 21.1 percent

Net Cost 11,066,670

Percent Change 35.5 percent

Average Cost Per Trip 20.92

Percent Change 14.3 percent    

Fiscal Year 1998-1999

Passenger Trips 646,298

Percent Change 22.2 percent

Average Weekday Trips 2, 483

Percent Change 21.6 percent

Net Cost 14,086,664

Percent Change 27.3 percent

Average Cost Per Trip 21.80

Percent Change 4.2 percent

Fiscal Year 1999-2000

Passenger Trips 778,960

Percent Change 20.5 percent

Average Weekday Trips 2,725

Percent Change 21.6 percent

Net Cost 16,594,748

Percent Change 17.8 percent

Average Cost Per Trip 21.30

Percent Change -2.3 percent

Fiscal Year 2000-2001

Passenger Trips 860,159

Percent Change 10.4 percent

Average Weekday Trips 2,996

Percent Change 9.9 percent

Net Cost 21,558,433

Percent Change 29.9 percent

Average Cost Per Trip 25.06

Percent Change 17.6 percent 

Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Passenger Trips 1,018,992

Percent Change 18.5 percent

Average Weekday Trips 3,559

Percent Change 18.8 percent

Net Cost 32,866,639

Percent Change 52.5 percent

Average Cost Per Trip 32.25

Percent Change 28.7 percent

Fiscal Year 2002-2003 current projections

Passenger Trips 1,094,000

Percent Change 7.4 percent

Average Weekday Trips 3,822

Percent Change 7.4 percent

Net Cost 30,566,040

Percent Change -7.0 percent

Average Cost Per Trip 27.93

Percent Change -13.4 percent

Attachment to the March 20, 2003 Paratransit Improvement Plan Update TP & O Committee Memo.

Click here to return to the Board Agenda Index