HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010430.tiff wSTATF, OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �.
, F " -7 Al � , re SOT
f
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver,Colorado 80222
(303)757-9011 r
A SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY
February 5, 2001
PERSONS INTERESTED IN TRANSIT SERVICES IN COLORADO:
In November and December 2000, the CDOT Transit Unit conducted its annual Policy Options Workshops. They
were held in Denver,Durango, Glenwood Springs, and Walsenburg,and attracted a variety of attendees and
agencies. The Workshops were designed to obtain input on the administration of the FTA Section 5310 and 5311
grant programs,and other issues of interest to the participants. The purpose of this mailing is to summarize what
was said at the Workshops and to inform you of the actions CDOT intends to take as a result of that input.
The agenda for each Workshop addressed four main issues:review of CDOTs reimbursement procedures;feasibility
of obtaining consistent software for both FTA Section 5310 and 5311 applications and reimbursements; grantee
input and review of the two year application cycle;and,transition of Transit Development Plans(TDPs)to a Transit
Element(TE)of the Regional Transportation Plans(RTPs). An opportunity for input on other issues was also
provided to the participants. Participants were encouraged to speak out on these issues, though the purpose was not
necessarily to reach consensus.
The summary is organized for easier reading: introductions to the topics are in italics; descriptions of the discussions
are in regular print; and,the proposed actions are printed in bold.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you that participated in the Workshops. Your input is invaluable
in administering the FTA programs, as well as coordinating efforts of other programs at CDOT. If you have any
questions, please call ma at(2.03)757-9768,or Stephen Ellis in the Transit Unit at(303)757-9766.
�`'' f
Jrre'Ten) el
tempo, al Secti ._. .anger
A taclvaent
Col 2 y 1p41 ` 2001-0430
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS
2000 TRANSIT POLICY OPTIONS WORKSHOPS
February 5, 2001
Introduction
At each of the Policy Options Workshops (POWs), the background of the POWs was discussed. It was stated that
the POWs have been held annually for nearly twenty years, and that in the past the Transit Unit would sometimes
recommend issues and possible changes (including changes to the Rules and Regulations regarding the
administration of th; „ ograms). This year the POW agenda consisted of four main issues: review of CDOTs
='err m u pn: es;/easibility of obtaining consistent software for both FTA Section 5310 and 5311
applications and reimbursements;grantee input and review of the two year application cycle;and, transition of
Transit Development Plans(TDPs) to a Transit Element(TE)of the Regional Transportation Plans(RTPs). In
addition, an opportunity for input on other issues was provided to the participants. Input from the CASTA/CDOT
Fall Transit Conference regional breakout sessions was also addressed. CDOT staff discussed some of the
Colorado Transportation Commission's new policy concerning transit funding. Following is a summary of the 2000
POWs.
Input from Fall Transit Conference CDOT Breakout Session
The CASTA/CDOT Fall Conference regional breakout sessions were summarized. A new research project CDOT is
undertaking regarding the coordination of land use planning and transit facilities was also discussed. It was stated
that CDOT will utilize a consultant for a year long project scheduled to begin in January, 2001. It was explained
that the research will assess the relationship between densities ridership, and the local supporting transportation
system.
There were requests from the Fall Conference participants to have CDOT prepare a "citizens guide"to the
transportation planning process. The Fall Conference participants believed such a guide could serve as a base
source of information on how to better become involved in the transportation planning process. CDOT will include
this "guide" in its work program for next year.
Fall Conference participants also asked for better guidance on how to make the transition from TDPs to Transit
Elements of the RTPs. It was stated that CDOT staff is working on that issue and will put something out at a later
date.
The Fall Conference participants appeared to agree that there is great confusion over the number and delineation of
boundaries(Transportation Commission, CDOT Regions, CDOT Maintenance. Districts,and.TPRs). Many of the
participants believed the State should attempt to minimize this confusion and consider "nesting" these boundaries,
so that their agencies would not be in two or more CDOT regions. CDOT staff agreed to discuss these concerns
with the Administration, the Transportation Commission, and other "owners"of these boundaries.
At the Fall Conference, there was a concern over the lack of State funding for transit projects. It was explained that
in November the Transportation Commission approved a policy that says "Other Regional Priorities" funds can be
flexed for other modes if they are a high regional priority.
Many Fall Conference attendees expressed a desire to make these breakout sessions a regular agenda item at future
Fall Transit Conferences.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT staff will prepare a "citizens guide" to the transportation planning process.
B. CDOT staff will prepare a schedule regarding the transition from TDPs to Transit Elements of the
RTPs. In addition,a guide to preparing transit elements will be prepared and distributed to transit
providers and TPRs.
C. CDOT staff will present the issue of "conflicting boundaries" to the Administration,Transportation
Commission,and other "owners" of the boundaries.
D. The Transportation Commission has made "Other Regional Priorities"funds available for
alternative modes. The"citizens guide"will describe how to compete for these funds for transit
projects.
E. CDOT will coordinate with CASTA to attempt to get the Breakout Sessions a regular agenda item at
the Fall Transit Conference.
Colorado Transportation Commission Policy Concerning State Funding of Transit Projects
It was reported that CDOT staff has been working on updating the Statewide Transportation Plan (STP). Twenty-
six public meetings were held around the State to garner better input into the STP. At these meetings, there was a
lot of sentiment for CDOT to do more multi-modal planning, which would include more transit projects. It was
explained that this same sentiment had been expressed through the numerous surveys CDOT conducted in accord
with the preparation of the STP. As a result of the meetings and surveys, the Transportation Commission adopted
"State Policy" at their November meeting to support transit and other modes of transportation.
It was further explained that the State Policy contains support for transit with State funding, but that any State
funding will have to come from new sources. It was stated that although this policy may take some time to
implement, there is a more immediate movement to provide alternative modes access to transportation funds by
allowing the use of "Other Regional Priority"funds(federal) to be flexed for transit and other modes, if they can
compete favorably through the Regional Planning Process. It was said that although State Highway Users Tax
Fund(HUTF)funds will not be eligible,presently about 18% or approximately 60 million dollars a year of the
CDOT transportation funds over the next twenty years are allocated for "Other Regional Priorities". It was
pointed out that for transit providers to take advantage of this opportunity, they must become more involved in the
Regional Planning Process through their respective Regional Planning Commissions and CDOT Regional
Transportation Directors. It was further stated that local support for transit projects is key in order to have a
project approved through the Regional Planning process.
George Krawzoff of Steamboat Springs Transit supported the statement that local support is key to getting a project
approved through the Regional Planning Process. He said that approximately$1,000,000 of State funds had been
flexed to pay part of the new Modal Center in Steamboat Springs. He further said that through the planning process
it was pointed out that because of the location of the Intermodal Center, there were benefits to the highway system.
He said that they would not have received these funds without this significant amount of local support. It was
reiterated that strong local support would be necessary to receive such large amounts.
Jeanne Erickson of CASTA reported that a group of transit providers met with Tom Norton, Executive Director of
CDOT, to ask for his support for their efforts to get state funding for transit projects. She said that Mr. Norton
indicated he would support transit planning, but not funding for transit. She reported that he further stated that
highways are his main charge. She further stated that he said the public must let their transit needs for funding be
known, and that the public must be willing to participate in advocating that these funds be obtained from new
sources.
It was pointed out that the CASTA group was looking for 4 million dollars from the general fund to match federal
transit funds. The question was asked whether Jeanne believed Tom Norton said the State would not support transit
in general or would not support any of these funds to be used for transit. She replied that he said he would not
support funding for transit. It was expressed that possibly part of the reason Tom Norton was taking this position
was because of the aftermath of the passage of Amendment 23. It was pointed out that CDOT could be looking at a
one year(25%) cut in their funding(to make up the loss of funds to education purposes), and that CDOT will be
working with the Legislature to make up this amount, making it difficult to ask for funds for other purposes.
Jeanne also reported that a meeting was held with representatives from the Governor's Office. She said Jennifer
Finch, George Small, George Krawzoff, Liz Rao, Sherri Ritenour,Tom Frazier, Ruben Valdez, and she attended
this meeting. She stated this was a "familiarization" meeting, held for the primary purpose of providing the
Governor's Office with information on transit. She said the representatives stated that they had no idea there were
as many transit systems as there are in Colorado.
Regarding the Regional Planning Process and the new transit funding policy,Karen Schneiders of CDOT Region 2
expressed concern that projects have already gone through the Regional Planning process. She said that presently
the STIP will be held whole, and asked what the ramifications would be if the Regional Planning Commissions
reconsider projects in light of the new policy. It was explained that it will be up to the Regional Planning
Commissions to address how they want to handle the new policy. It was stated that it would make sense to
incorporate this policy through the next STIP cycle. It was also pointed out that Regional Plans will need to be
amended to include any new projects to be funded with funds that may be eligible to be flexed. It was stressed that
the new policy would allow funds to be eligible to be flexed, but not mandated that they be flexed. It was reiterated
that there should be local support and local entities must take the initiative to go after the flex funds.
Karen also asked that she and other planners in the CDOT Regional Offices be kept aware of transit activities
(Transit Conferences,Policy Options Workshops, grantee awards, other mailings). It was explained that both the
CDOT Regional Directors and the regional planners have been included on the mailing lists,and will continue to
receive notices of transit activities.
Mike Davis of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority(RFTA)asked what would be considered a new form of State
funding. He was told that it would depend on the political context in which the funds are sought,but that by and
large, the sense of the Transportation Commission is that the new transit money should not come at the expense of
roads since road needs are so great,but from an independent source of funds.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT staff will continue to assist local transit providers to become more involved in their respective
Regional Transportation Processes and produce a guide to Transit Elements.
B. The Transportation Commission has adopted a policy to support transit and other modes of
transportation, but that any State funding must come from new sources.
C. The Transportation Commission has allowed the use of "Other Regional Priorities" funds to be
flexed for alternative modes of transportation,if they can compete favorably through the Regional
Planning Process.
D. The Transit Unit staff will include the CDOT Regional directors and planners on mailing lists for
transit activities.
Review of FTA Sections 5310 and 5311 Reimbursement Procedures
Mattew Paswaters presented a handout showing the proposed new reimbursement procedures for FTA Sections
5310 and 531 L Matt stated that CDOT is changing the reimbursement forms in an effort to simplify the process for
both the grantees and the State. He stated that changes are not only being made to the reimbursement forms, but
also to the contacts. He reviewed the reimbursement form, and said that the main changes concern the elimination
of the "overmatch"item from the reimbursement form and the 10%requirementfrom the contract. Matt said the
contracts will be amended to show that the following language is to be removed from the 2001 contracts: "The
monthly administrative or operating reimbursement shall be based on 10%increments of the federal award for that
category. The effect shall be cumulative". He said that although some grantees may be able to access all of their
funds earlier, they will still have to submit the monthly form showing Parts B-the vehicle data, passenger trips,
performance data, and trip purpose, and Part C-Rural Trips, ADA Paratransit Trips, and Wheelchair Trips. Matt
stated that as result of these changes the grantees may be able to receive all of their funding sooner in the year(not
have to wait until the end of the contract period), and the paperwork will be simpler.
It was explained that the 10%provision was included in the past to keep agencies from drawing down all the funds
before the project was completed. The North Metro Mobility bankruptcy situation was used as an example. A few
years ago,North Metro Mobility got into financial trouble and had to cease operations. They had used all the FTA
funds earlier in the year and had no funds to provide services for the rest of the year, so the 10%provision was put
in the contracts to avoid this situation. It was also noted that the 10%provision may create confusion and seem
inappropriate for public bodies, who are not likely to go bankrupt.
Hank Braaksma of Seniors' Resource Center stated that since SRC brokers some of its services, it may be hard to
keep track of the various kinds of trips. Matt replied that CDOT understands that issue,and suggested recording the
number of trips on a "best guess"basis. Further, in response to a question from Scott Truex of Mountain Express in
Crested Butte, Matt stated that CDOT will still require a signature on the monthly reimbursement requests for funds,
with the introduction of electronic submittals. He said signatures will not be required on reimbursement forms
when submitting forms for performance measures. However, he said that submissions of the report electronically
are acceptable. CDOT will investigate E-Mail signatures so no mailing would be necessary.
Lenna Kottke asked what was meant by ADA/Demand Responsive/Eligible Trips. Pat Loose responded that there is
a need to track compliance with ADA regulations regarding ADA trips. She stated that in order to do this it is
necessary to at least estimate the number of ADA trips provided. She further stated that more ADA trips than wheel
chair trips will usually be shown. She advised the participants to provide the best information they can on this issue,
in order to be prepared for any questions from their community regarding ADA compliance.
Mike Davis asked if Parts B and C of the reimbursement forms will be required to be submitted even if an agency
has drawn down all of its funds. Matt replied that CDOT will still track the items in Parts B and C, and that the
forms could be submitted monthly or quarterly,but at a minimum they should be submitted at least twice a year.
Mike also asked when the new reimbursement forms will be effective. Matt replied that they will be required for
the next contract period,probably starting with the 2001 contracts.
George Small stated that there is a need to define "wheelchair"trips. Matt said that he is preparing instructions
for the reimbursement forms,and that he will include a definition section.
David Chance of Pueblo SRDA asked whether Part C of the reimbursement forms only referred to rural service. It
was decided that although the rest of the reimbursement form related to the grantee's total program, Part C referred
only to rural service. Matt said he will change the title of Part C on the reimbursement form to include a reference
to rural service. Pat emphasized that the forms are being changed in an attempt to make it easier for both CDOT
and the grantees to utilize them. She stressed that any changes should be in the interest of asking the right questions
in order to get the information needed.
David suggested that it may be a good idea to include a category in Part B of the reimbursement forms that
addresses cancellations and no shows,since the number of passenger trips may show a low figure, but not include
cancellations and no-shows(which the agency can not control). He said that if the cancellations were included
they would meet the average trips criteria. The participants agreed with this suggestion, and Man said he would
include it in the final iteration of the reimbursement form.
Sid Spiegel of CO Senior Lobby/NARFE pointed out that there is a difference between Western Slope rural systems
and the Eastern Slope rural transit systems. He said that the Western Slope has seasonal resort related transit
service,which is different than Eastern Slope rural transit(covering larger geographic areas). Tom Mauser said that
CDOT is aware of this difference, and that in order to receive FTA funds,resort areas must provide year-round
service. Scott Truex stated that ski resort service used to be cyclical(heavier in the winter),but that was changing
as these resorts attempt to provide year-round activities(with transit service).
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT staff will implement the new reimbursement forms and contracts effective January 1, 2001.
B. CDOT staff will prepare instructions for the new reimbursement forms, and will include definitions
of "wheelchair" trips.
C. CDOT staff will include a category for cancellations and no-shows on the reimbursement forms.
Feasibility of Obtaining Consistent Software for Sections 5310 and 5311 Applications and Reimbursements
Matt Paswaters stated that CDOT is considering using an electronic method to process reimbursements and
possibly contracts in the future. He said that in order to do this,grantees must have CDOT compatible hardware
and software. Matt explained that CDOT has contracted with RAE Consultants to survey grantees regarding the
type of computer hardware and software they are using. He also stated that it may be possible for CDOT to
purchase CDOT compatible software for grantees. He said that once the survey is complete, CDOT will analyze the
results and determine how many software packages will be necessary to purchase for the grantees. He said it is
anticipated that CDOT will assist grantees in obtaining the necessary hardware and/or software, in order to begin
electronic reimbursements by next year. He explained that CDOT will provide grantees with an electronic disk that
will contain a program that will automatically compute grantee reimbursement requests.
Matt was asked whether CDOT expects contracts to be processed electronically. He answered that only
reimbursements will be processed electronically next year, but that CDOT will then begin working on utilizing the
electronic media to process contracts. He explained that many of the applications are currently being processed
electronically,but that the instructions are very lengthy. He said that CDOT is working on first developing
electronic reimbursement capabilities and getting grantees trained to use them before reducing the size of the
instructions for reimbursements.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT staff will complete the hardware and software survey and determine how to assist grantees in
submitting Section 5310 and 5311 applications and reimbursements.
B. CDOT staff will look at the feasibility of obtaining CDOT compatible hardware and software.
C. CDOT staff will work towards implementing electronic reimbursements next year.
D. CDOT staff will work towards implementing electronic contract submission in the future.
Review of the Two Year Sections 5310 and 5311 Application Cycle
Stephen Ellis explained the two-year application cycle. He said CDOT has been using it for two years and there do
not appear to be any problems. He asked the Workshop participants if they were satisfied with the two-year cycle,
whether they would prefer a different cycle, and how they perceived the process.
Hank Braaksma stated that even though he favors the two-year application cycle, it could possibly cause problems
with the procurement process. It was explained that the problems are germane to this year's process because
CDOT got a later start on procurement than usual this year.
Jim Hill of The Resource Exchange asked whether the bids for vehicles were also good for two years. In response,
it was stated that if a vendor bids for two years,the bid should be honored for two years. It was noted that there
could be a potential problem with the two-year cycle as it relates to new applicants. He said they may have to wait a
year before they could apply for FTA funds. It was pointed out that all applicants must meet the threshold criteria
of having the content of their application in a TDP or Transit Element of a Regional Transportation Plan(RTP).
Further, it was stated that this requirement gives new applicants an early warning regarding the application for FTA
programs.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT will continue the two-year application cycle.
B. CDOT staff will strive to start the procurement process earlier.
C. There was clear consensus of the Workshop participants to keep the two-year cycle.
Transition from Transit Development Plans(TDPs) to Transit Elements of the Regional Transportation Plans
Stephen Ellis stated that it is a goal of CDOT to transition from TDPs to Transit Elements of the RTPs by the year
2004. He explained that after 2004, TDPs will no longer be required in order to be eligible for the ETA Sections
5310 and 5311 programs. He stated that instead all transit projects(especially those requesting FTA Sections
5309, 5310, and 5311 will be required to be in the Transit Element of a RTP in order to be eligible for federal or
future state funding. He further stated that this is being done in anticipation of transit being eligible to receive state
or federal funds for transit in the future and to make the transportation planning process more multi-modal in
nature
He explained that any entities that are not in a current TDP(or entities that are in a TDP, but want to do something
that is not described in the current TDP) will have to approach their respective Regional Planning Commissions
with a request to include their projects in the Regional Transportation Plan. He said all transit projects requesting
ETA funds must be described in, and consistent with, a TDP or included as a Transit Element in their RTP by the
Spring of 2001 (the next application cycle)
Stephen handed out a list of TPRs with their respective counties. This list showed CDOT's approach to getting all
TDPs/Transit Elements within a TPR on the same time line(TDP/TE expiration date).
George Small asked whether the format for a Transit Element will be the same as the current TDP format. He was
told that the format will be the same,but that agencies should make sure that the TDP/Transit Element covers
twenty years(the first six years in detail, and the remaining fourteen years should show projected needs).
Karen Schneider clarified that CDOT Region 2 refers to the Regional Transportation Plan as the Long Range
Transportation Plan(LRP),and that the Transit Element will be the transit chapter to the LRP. She emphasized that
these documents are one and the same. She said that currently transit is included in the LRP,but not to the level of
detail of a TDP or Transit Element.
George Small asked what role the Transit Advisory Committee(TAC)of the TDPs will play in the preparation of
the Regional Transportation Plan. Karen suggested that the TAC be the "voice of transit"at the Regional Planning
Commission, but all providers should be at the meetings. It was pointed out that there is a need for CDOT to
provide guidance regarding what is in a Transit Element, who represents transit projects at the RPC meetings,and
how best to integrate transit into the RTPs.
George Small pointed out that like highways, there is a need for transit "maintenance" funds(i.e.: funds to maintain
a transit system, not just start-up or capital funds). He used the example that highway projects have a beginning and
an end, but that transit "projects"are on going, and there is a need for transit maintenance funds in addition to funds
for new vehicles and the expansion of services.
Scott Truex stated that the Gunnison Valley TPR has a current TDP/Transit Element, but said he has observed that
amending the TDP is relatively easy. He questioned whether some amendments reflected sufficient planning, or
whether they were just considered projects that needed to be in the TDP so that they were eligible for FTA funding.
Tom Mauser said that CDOT staff will be preparing a guide for what a Transit Element should look like, and invited
participants to provide input to the staff. He said that regardless of what the Transit Element looks like (a TDP or
othenvise) it should contain sufficient detail to warrant the need for specific projects.
Ben Ortiz of DRCOG asked what portions of a TDP should be in the RIP. It was reiterated that all transit projects
seeking FTA must be in the TDP, and that it should cover twenty years, with the first six years being in greater
detail than the last fourteen years,since the TDP or RTP can be amended at any time and that the RTP is updated
every five years. It was pointed out that all transit projects requesting FTA funds must also be in the STIP in order
to be considered for funding. It was suggested that Ben get together with DRCOG's planning staff in order to
determine what projects should be included,as well as how to get them in the RTP and STIP.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT staff will work on preparing a guide on what should be in a Transit Element.
B. CDOT will continue to assist agencies in meeting the TDP/Transit Element requirements.
C. CDOT will pursue its goal of getting all TDPs within a TPR on the same time line, and to make the
transition from TDPs to Transit Elements of the RTPs by 2004.
Other Issues
POW participants were given an opportunity to address other issues that were not on the agenda. The following
issues were presented.
Jan Choti of The Durango Lift stressed the need for State assistance in assisting local entities to match the federal
transit programs,regardless of the source of the State funds. She reiterated the need for State funding for transit.
Gerald Wallace of Mountain Village expressed a need for the State to consider getting the various transportation
boundaries in line.
Karen Schneider of CDOT Region 2 reiterated her request to have the CDOT regional planners included on all
mailing lists concerning transit activities.
George Small of The Ride asked how to get transit "engineering"projects such as bus pull-outs included in the
STIP. He was told that agencies need to get the requests into the Regional Transportation Plan and Statewide
Transportation Plan. If they are of a high enough priority,they should be included in the STIP. George also asked
how to get Park and Rides funded. It was pointed out that not all Park and Ride projects are paid for by CDOT.
This was agreed to, and pointed out that they are eligible for some funding categories and should still be identified
in the RTP, and that they may be funded from a variety of sources(private and public).
George Small also asked for an explanation of "511", and whether 511 would have an update on signage issues.
He was told that 511 is a nationwide number for a brand new program authorized by Congress to disseminate
transportation information and present the local status of travel information,just as 911 is a three-digit number for
emergencies. It was believed that signage information would be the type of subject to be addressed in 511.
Mark Lowther of Arkansas Valley CCB asked what the reporting time lines will be for Section 5311 reimbursement.
He was told that it will still be 60 days,but that they will be strongly enforced.
Pat Loose of CDOT encouraged all participants to become Medicaid eligible. She said that Gary Nation, a program
specialist for the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Office of Medical Assistance, reported
at the CASTA/CDOT Fall Transit Conference that there will be$10,000,000 available for transportation. She said
that$12.59 per one way trip and$15.00 per one way wheelchair trips for Medicaid eligible trips could be paid for
by Medicaid. Deanne Tyner of Prowers Area Transit said her agency is participating and that interested parties
should work through their county Department of Social Services.
Vicki McLane of the North Front Range MPO encouraged CDOT to attempt to synchronize its FTA programs with
other CDOT transportation programs, in order to get all transportation programs on the same fiscal year cycle. This
especially pertains to FHWA planning funds and the FTA 5303 and 5313(b)funds. It was stated that this issue has
been discussed at previous POWs(without much support),but that the State has entered into cooperative
agreements in some cases. Mattew Paswaters of CDOT replied that one reason other contracts operate under a
cooperative agreement is because CDOT has agreed to "front end" PL projects by paying for expenses with State
funds until federal funds are officially received from the respective federal agencies. He said that this approach has
been discussed with the State Controller relating to FTA funds,but that since no State funds can be used for transit,
this can not be done. It was stated that CDOT will take this suggestion under advisement and re-explore the issue
with the State Controller.
Cliff Davidson of the Grand Junction/Mesa MPO stated that there was a need to educate County Commissioners and
Transportation Commission members regarding transit issues in the planning process. He said there appeared to be
a lot of turnover at the staff,Transportation Commission, and Regional Planning Commission levels. A map of the
TPRs was handed out, which included a thumbnail sketch of the planning and budgeting process for a transit
project. It was pointed out that CDOT would be expanding on this process, and that the results will be available to
providers, the Transportation Commission, County Commissioners, and other persons interested in transit.
Cliff Davidson also suggested adding "Transportation" to "Regional Planning Commission"because he believed
the RPC is only active at the time of preparing a RTP.
Cliff Davidson stated that there is a local need for a TDP, and that by going to a Transit Element of the RTP some of
the detail of a TDP will be lost. He also pointed out that a regional Transit Element will cost more than the last
RTP, which did not have the level of detail necessary for transit projects. He stated that it will be necessary to
define what will be needed in the Transit Elements of the RTPs. It was stated that the Transit Elements should be
similar to the current TDPs,but would include a twenty-year element. It was reiterated that the first six years of the
Transit Elements should be in similar detail to the data included in a TDP(background information, inventory of
existing transit facilities and services, needs analysis,alternatives,and recommendations),while the next fourteen
years would be a more general projection of their transit needs.
Cliff Davison asked how FTA Section 5307 funds are allocated. He said that because Grand Junction now has a
public transportation system,he believes the allocation is too low. He was told that these are FTA formula funds
allocated to MPOs, and that FTA asks for the Governor's approval of the allocation before distributing the funds. It
was further stated that in the past,some MPOs had surplus funds that were reallocated to other MPOs,but that now
the MPOs use all of their Section 5307 funds.
Paul Butler of Greyhound Lines, Inc. asked for clarification on the makeup and duties of a RPC. He said it was
confusing him to ask a County to provide regional coordination. It was pointed out that most RPCs do not have
staff, and that the entire process is evolutionary. It was stated that the planning process is still in its beginning
stages(has only gone through two cycles), and that Counties are being asked to play a lead role in assisting the State
towards a more mature planning process.
Mike Davis of RFTA asked whether there was a better way to meet the DBE requirements. He said screening each
vendor was not efficient. He also asked whether the six percent goal was for a total program or just for the federal
portion of programs. He was told that it was a State goal, and that it was for the total program. Further, it was
stated that providers should not have to screen each vendor, but should look on the monthly DBE sheets that Gloria
Hershberger of the CDOT Transit Unit sends them from the Colorado Office of Certification. It was said that if the
vendor is not on the list,they are not considered a DBE. It was suggested that DBE questions be directed to Gloria.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
A. CDOT staff will present the issue of "conflicting boundaries" to the Administration,Transportation
Commission, and other "owners" of the boundaries.
B. The Transit Unit staff will include the CDOT Regional directors and planners on mailing lists for
transit activities.
C. The Transportation Commission has made "Other Regional Priorities" funds available for
alternative modes. CDQT staff will continue to monitor the short term and long term efforts being
made to afford transit and other modes an opportunity to obtain additional State funds.
D. CDOT staff will continue to assist local transit providers to become more involved in their respective
Regional Transportation Processes.
E. CDOT will investigate the possibility of "fronting"FTA transit funds, in an effort to explore the
possibility of getting FTA transit funds on the same fiscal year as other transportation projects.
F. CDOT will prepare a citizens guide to explain the planning and budgeting process for transit.
Hello