1 / 32

Regional Transit Authorities

Regional Transit Authorities. Structure, Funding, What Works and What Doesn’t Work. General Comments. Many systems are city and county functions In many states, there are multiple models even within a single metropolitan area No one predominate method Pros and cons to all.

zaina
Download Presentation

Regional Transit Authorities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Regional Transit Authorities Structure, Funding, What Works and What Doesn’t Work

  2. General Comments • Many systems are city and county functions • In many states, there are multiple models even within a single metropolitan area • No one predominate method • Pros and cons to all

  3. Examples of Regional Transit Authorities

  4. California Bay Area • Strong MPO oversight • Over 20 individual transit operators

  5. Metropolitan Transportation Commission • Coordinates and plans major projects • 19 commissioners and 3 non voting from federal and state agencies • Controls flow of federal and state transportation funds

  6. Bay Area Rapid Transit • 9 members elected by district • Sales tax and property tax

  7. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District • 19 members from 6 counties paid $50 per day • 50% of bus and ferry expenses from surplus bridge tolls

  8. SamTrans • 9 members from county, cities, and public at large plus 1 transportation expert • 0.5% sales tax • Also administers Caltrain

  9. Colorado Regional Transportation District • 15 member board elected by district • Sales tax of 0.6% increased to 1% for FasTracks construction • 3% discount for timely payment of sales tax revenue

  10. Illinois Citilink • Mayor of each of the 3 jurisdictions appoint 1 member for each 100,000 or portion thereof • Voter approval of tax

  11. Indiana CityBus • 7 members appointed by mayors and councils of Lafayette and West Lafayette • Taxing district that is larger than service area and includes suburban areas in Tippecanoe County

  12. Massachusetts Worchester Regional Transit Authority • 14 member towns • 14 board members appointed by City Manager or Mayor of Worchester, Chair of Board of Selectman, or Town Manager of each town • Commonwealth provides large share of operating expense • Cities served pay assessment • Except MBTA, all operators and maintainers must be private employees

  13. Michigan Metro Transit • Serves Kalamazoo and 5 surrounding towns, plus 2 colleges • 7 members appointed by Kalamazoo mayor confirmed by council • Kalamazoo – 3 year renewable millage

  14. Capital Area Transportation Authority • 10 members appointed by member towns; MSU and County have non-voting representation • Combined with MSU system, which funds services • Renewable millage

  15. Nebraska Metro Area Transit • 5 board members appointed by Omaha mayor and confirmed by council • Tax levy on all tangible and real personal property in the City of Omaha • Service contracts outside of Omaha and cannot use Omaha levy

  16. New York Capital District Transportation Authority • 9 member board appointed by governor confirmed by Senate; 3 from Albany County and 2 each from 3 other counties • Gross receipts tax on oil and gas companies levied by NYS • Mortgage recording fee

  17. North Carolina Charlotte Area Transit System • Metropolitan Transit Commission – City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, 6 towns, and NC Board of Transportation • City department, private operation • Sales tax

  18. Ohio Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority • 3/10 of 1% of earnings tax collected by City of Cincinnati on everyone who lives and works in the city • 9 members appointed by Hamilton County Commissioners with 4 recommended by the Cincinnati City Council

  19. Oregon Lane Transit District • .0064% ($6.40 per $1,000) of wage paid by an employer and the net earnings from self-employment • 7 members from specific districts appointed by governor confirmed by Senate

  20. Cherriots – Salem-Keizer Transit • 7 elected by district • Property tax levy approved by voters

  21. Pennsylvania • Strong state funding role and oversight • Funds collected at state level and distributed based on formula and performance; requires small local match • Act 44 Public Transportation Program

  22. Capital Area Transit • 6 members; 2 each from Harrisburg, Cumberland County, and Dauphin County

  23. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority • 1 each from 5 counties, governor, Senate and House majority and minority leaders; total of 10 members

  24. Texas Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority • 7 members; 2 Austin City Council, 1 Travis County, 1 suburban mayoral representative, 1 from Williamson County, and 2 from MPO • 1% sales tax

  25. Dallas Area Rapid Transit • 13 member cities • 15 members based on population; 8 from Dallas and 7 from suburban areas • 1% sales tax

  26. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas • 9 members: 5 from Houston, 2 from other 14 member cities; 2 from county • 1% sales tax • Has major role for arterial streets and freeways

  27. Washington Spokane Transit Authority • 9 members who are elected officials for jurisdictions that make up the Public Transportation Benefit Area • Sales tax

  28. Key Observations

  29. Board Membership • Board membership does not always reflect level of service and/or population • Elected boards are exception, but elected representatives are not

  30. Funding • Multiple funding sources exist • Funding can be unpredictable based on the economy • Renewal can be both a carrot and a stick

  31. Wisconsin Issues • What should the Council consider?

  32. MPO representation • Labor law, in particular, the “Mediation/Arbitration” law • Funding: • Cannot just replace current revenue, must allow for growth • Fares do not keep pace with cost growth • Continued state role in funding and oversight

More Related