Laserfiche WebLink
Coborrus County Transportation Services (CCTS) Finol Report — September 2015 <br />10. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION <br />The Cabarrus County Board of County Commissioners is responsible for budget approval, <br />human resources, and overall policy direction of CCTS — the Commissioners are the <br />architects of the mission statement. Historically the County has always come through <br />generously to keep the buses rolling each year. The Board will be asked to approve the <br />study recommendations and ultimately decide which of the CTSP initiatives are supported. <br />One overriding goal is for transit agencies to implement service that has a balance between <br />service quality and the unit cost of service. The consultant embraced the Transportation <br />Manager's desire to retain the entire fleet of 27 vehicles and utilize them for new and <br />expanded demand responsive service and other programs. These vehicles would be replaced <br />on a useful life replacement schedule over the five -year period but no expansions would be <br />sought. To design or re- structure into a demand responsive service that could fully utilize <br />the fleet required looking across three key areas - management structure, service levels, <br />and procurement strategy. <br />Acknowledging that it is not feasible from a funding or operational perspective to <br />implement all of the potential recommendations within the CTSP planning timeframe, <br />particularly new /expanded service, a preliminary list of 22 potential service <br />enhancements /additions was assembled. A preliminary prioritization was performed by the <br />Steering Committee (see Table 14) before soliciting reaction from the general public. <br />Voting on Prioritization: <br />Due to a lack of time, we needed a follow up in order to confirm that the items identified as <br />being supported should be moved forward. Steering Committee members did this through <br />casting their votes. The votes pushed some items that didn't appear to be of the highest <br />priority into positions where they will be considered as viable alternatives. (see the full <br />results of the balloting in Table 15). <br />Table 14: Initiatives Listed by Number of Votes <br />Attachment number 1 \n <br />F -3 Page 171 <br />Top Preferences from Possible Initiatives <br />High <br />Some <br />Little <br />No <br />N/A <br />Likes <br />2.7 <br />Hispanic representation on TAB <br />3 <br />4 <br />0 <br />0 <br />1 <br />7 <br />3.4 <br />Accept maximum RGP <br />4 <br />3 <br />1 <br />0 <br />0 <br />7 <br />2.6 <br />Provide specialized training for key staff <br />5 <br />1 <br />1 <br />0 <br />1 <br />6 <br />3.3 <br />Apply for 5310 purchase of service <br />3 <br />3 <br />0 <br />0 <br />2 <br />6 <br />2.5 <br />Fare increase <br />2 <br />3 <br />2 <br />0 <br />1 <br />5 <br />3.2 <br />5307- solicit from the MPO <br />2 <br />3 <br />1 <br />0 <br />2 <br />5 <br />4.2 <br />Coordinated Out -of- County trips (4 counties) <br />3 <br />3 <br />0 <br />1 <br />1 <br />5 <br />4.5 <br />Universal voucher /tickets <br />2 <br />3 <br />1 <br />0 <br />2 <br />5 <br />1.4 <br />Feeder bus to transit hubs (esp. future CATS Route 80) <br />3 <br />3 <br />0 <br />2 <br />0 <br />4 <br />4.3 <br />Ensure 3rd party provider by base level of taxi trips <br />1 <br />3 <br />0 <br />0 <br />4 <br />4 <br />4.4 <br />Private sector participation in transit hubs <br />1 <br />3 <br />3 <br />0 <br />1 <br />4 <br />Attachment number 1 \n <br />F -3 Page 171 <br />