1991-10010-Minutes for Meeting April 03,1991 Recorded 4/12/19919!--10010 "/'"''FIL'~' 0106 0800
APR 1. `7 1 `9 9 1
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERST't
April 3 1991
Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 Board
members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Na#'c. ;rope
Schlangen. Also present were Darrell Davidson, County ;S#er f;
Kevin Harrison, Planner; Ralph Delamarter, Librarian; an4` R-Fck
Isham, County Counsel.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of
Resolution 91-027 proclaiming the week of April 7-13, 1991,
as Telecommunicators Week in Deschutes County; #2,
authorization for High Desert BMX to file land use actions for
park at Demolition Landfill site; #3, signature of Resolution
91-019, accepting petition to vacate portion of C. B. Swalley
Road, Engineer's Report, and Order 91-048 setting a public
hearing for May 15, 1991; #4, signature of Resolution 91-020
accepting petition to vacate a portion of the Swalley Bridge
Market Road, Engineer's report, and Order 91-050 setting a
public hearing for May 15, 1991; #5, signature of Resolution
91-021 accepting petition to vacate all of Deschutes Northwest
Road, Engineer's Report, and Order 91-052 setting a public
hearing for May 15, 1991; #6, signature of Acceptance of
Dedication and Vacation of Portion of Ferguson Road; #7,
signature of Resolution 91-022 changing signature
authorization for employees of Gates McDonald on Workers'
Compensation Bank Account; #8, signature of Easement to PGT
for Metering Station in LaPine Industrial Park; #9, signature
of Resolution 91-023 declaring intention to transfer two
properties (one on Cooley Road and the other on SE 27th) to
Administrative School District #1, and setting a public
hearing for April 24, 1991; and #10, signature of Resolution
91-025 declaring personal property surplus and directing
disposition.
SCHLANGEN: I move approval of the consent agenda.
MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
2. OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL REQUEST
Before the Board was an out-of-state travel request from the
Sheriff's Department for Mike Johnson, representing the State
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 4-3-91
0106 0801
y
of Oregon on the Traffic Safety Team in North Carolina. The
$1392 cost would be picked up by the Traffic Safety
Commission.
THROOP: I'll move approval.
SCHLANGEN: I'll second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
3. REPLAT OF THREE LOTS IN SUNRIVER
Before the Board was signature of a replat, showing revised
rear setback lines, on three lots in River Village I,
Sunriver, for Gray, Simpson and Swan.
THROOP: I'll move signature of the replat.
SCHLANGEN: I'll second it.
VOTE: THROOP: NO
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
4. SUBLESSEE AGREEMENT WITH MCCAW COMMUNICATIONS
Before the Board was signature of a Radio Transmission and
Receiving Sublessee Agreement with McCaw Communications. Rick
Isham said Cellular One was applying for a 100 watt low power
application to go onto the OPB tower. Notice was sent to
individuals with an interest in the Awbrey Butte site and no
comments were received. McCaw Communications did receive a
phone call from KICE asking for clarification.
THROOP: I'll move signature of the radio transmission and
receiving sublessee agreement.
SCHLANGEN: I'll second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
5. ORDER 91-055 SURRENDERING COUNTY ROADS TO CITY OF REDMOND
Before the Board was signature of Order 91-055 surrendering
County roads to the City of Redmond pursuant to ORS 373.270.
THROOP: I'll move signature of Order 91-055.
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 4-3-91
f
SCHLANGEN: I'll second. Q
VOTE: THROOP: YES 0106 0802
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
6. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS
Before the Board were weekly bills in the amount of
$169,700.76.
THROOP: I'll move approval of the weekly warrant vouchers
subject to review.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
7. WAIVER OF DUMPING FEES FOR GREAT OREGON SPRING CLEANUP
Before the Board was a request from the Great Oregon Spring
Cleanup organizing committee that the Board agree to waive the
dumping fees for those participating in the GOSC on Friday,
April 26 through Sunday, April 28, 1991. Everyone would need
a red and white SOLV bag to be permitted into the landfill
without charge.
THROOP: I'll move the waiver.
SCHLANGEN: I'll second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
8. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RAIMONDI
Before the Board was signature of a Development Agreement for
a commercial building on S. Highway 97 for Robert Raimondi.
THROOP: I'll move signature of Development Agreement.
SCHLANGEN: I will second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 4-3-91
9. EXTENSION OF BIDS ON LIBRARY SOFTWARE PACKAGA0 6 0803
Ralph Delamarter said they had requested bids from the two
vendors who had software which was compatible with their
system. One of the bidders misunderstood the instructions and
therefore did not submit their bid by the deadline. The other
vendor submitted a bid by the deadline, but it had not been
opened.
Rick Isham said the Board had the authority to waive due to
irregularities and could extend the time period when proposals
could be submitted.
THROOP: Due to the possible irregularity and the
misperceptions that that could have caused, I would
move that the Board authorize Ralph to extend the
time period to allow the second bid to come in and
give Ralph and the system that is looking at these
two bids the opportunity to consider both,
especially in view of the fact that the one bid that
was received timely has not been opened.
SCHLANGEN: Second that.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
Chairman Maudlin adjourned the meeting of the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners and convened the meeting of the Governing
Body of the Black Butte Ranch Service District. Board members in
attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen.
Also present was Rick Isham, County Counsel.
10. RESOLUTION 91-024 AUTHORIZING PERS FOR BBR EMPLOYEES
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 91-024
authorizing Black Butte Ranch Service District to participate
in the Public Employees Retirement System and electing not to
participate in the Federal Social Security Act, superceding
Resolution 91-009, nunc pro tunc as of February 13, 1991.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Resolution 91-024
authorizing all that.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 4-3-91
0106 0804
11. PUBLIC HEARING: DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Before the Board was a public hearing on the proposed adoption
of the Deschutes County Transportation Improvement Plan as a
resource document.
Susan Mayea, Board of Commissioners Office, testified that
through a cooperative effort with a citizens organization, the
County had received a planning grant from the State to conduct
a transportation improvement plan for Deschutes County.
Weslin Consulting Services was hired to conduct that study.
She requested that the Board adopt the study as a resource
document. The next step would be to implement the study as
the public transportation element of the Countywide
transportation plan which should happen within a year. It
would eventually become the working document for a
transportation district Board of Director if and when a
district were formed. She did not feel that the plan would
become outdated for many years in the future. She introduced
David Browne, consultant with Weslin Consulting Services of
Bellevue Washington.
David Browne used a slide presentation to go through the
attached Transportation Improvement Plan with the Board of
Directors.
Chairman Maudlin pointed out to the audience that adoption of
the Transportation Plan as a resource document would not mean
the formation of a transportation district which would require
voter approval.
Chairman Maudlin opened the meeting for public testimony.
Pete Pedone, PO Box 3818, Sunriver, supported the adoption of
the transportation plan and the formation of a transportation
district. He was a hazardous materials consultant and worked
with firms which transport, use and dispose of hazardous
material. He suggested that the transportation planning for
Deschutes County include provisions for the safe
transportation of hazardous materials. If local officials
could provide uninterrupted transportation of hazardous
materials while keeping it away from populated areas, the
Federal Government would not intercede. He felt funding was
insignificant when compared to the tradeoffs that went with
transportation planning. He said there might be other funding
sources available if the safe transportation of hazardous
materials was added to the plan since the Federal Highway
Administration and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety had
provided additional funding to communities which planned for
the safe transportation of hazardous materials. He hoped that
Sunriver would be included in the regular transportation route
should the district be formed.
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 4-3-91
0106 0805
Jim Pessimer, President of the CAC Transportation Inc. which
operated as Redmond Airport Shuttle, said they were one of
three providers of transportation between Bend and the Redmond
Airport. He felt that the information given in the
presentation was outdated concerning who provided service to
where. He felt the routes suggested in the transportation
plan would adversely affect his business. Their business was
user-paid and was not publicly subsidized. He did not feel
that the income generated from the transportation district
would cover the costs. The Rogue Valley Transportation System
was operating at a loss, and they were an award winning
district.
Karen Cacy, co-chair of the Deschutes County Citizens for a
Transportation District and public information officer for
Tri-Met, said she was a weekend resident of Bend. She wanted
the growth in Deschutes County to be planned, managed and
organized. They wanted transportation emphasis over time to
shift to moving people instead of vehicles. Transportation
services needed to be closely coordinated with land use and
economic growth. They recommended that economic growth be
focused near urban centers by encouraging high density, mixed
use development; automobile dependence should be reduced by
promoting more condensed development, public transportation
and bicycle commuting; and maintain the integrity of urban
growth boundaries. She felt Deschutes County now had a state-
of-the-art, conservative transportation plan.
Steve Fosdick, Oregon Department of Transportation, 131
Transportation Bldg., Salem, testified that the Transportation
Plan put together by Weslin Consulting was a good one. He
said that tourists would not use a transportation system which
was not "top notch." The problem now was convincing the
voters that the time was right to put this plan into action.
He suggested building support by bringing together
representatives from business, seniors, and school students
to work to strengthen the community support for a
transportation district. He felt that a transportation
district would not hurt the taxi cabs but would actually help
them. He said the Department of Transportation supported
Deschutes County efforts and would be ready to help.
Commissioner Throop asked how much money went with the support
from the Department of Transportation?
Steve Fosdick said that funding loses by the formation of a
district could be offset in other ways. He said there was a
considerable amount of money that was only available to
districts. He would not commit to how much money might be
available to the district from the State.
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 4-3-91
0106 0806
Dennis Maloney, Community Corrections Director, testified in
favor of forming a transportation district. A poverty
workshop was held a couple of years ago, and the difficulty
of poor people in getting to their jobs and available services
was discussed. He said one of the best things for a young
person to do was to get a job, but that was difficult because
of the lack of adequate transportation. He was participating
in the formation of the Century Club which would include 100
businesses in each Deschutes County community which would give
one kid an introduction to the world of work, and provide them
with 100 hours of work. One of their first problems was
getting the kids to the work site. It was also a problem for
kids to get to wholesome recreational activities, i.e. the
Rosie Bareis Youth Campus. Even the adult corrections
population would be helped by getting a job, but in many cases
their driving privileges had been lost.
David Gordon, 60921 Willow Creek Loop, testified in favor of
the transportation district. He had lived in San Francisco,
Kansas City and Los Angeles and had worked in marketing and
construction of single story and high-rise buildings. He felt
the most important consideration was that the County continue
to focus on transportation alternatives and a the benefits of
a transit system. He said the citizens of Deschutes County
looked to their elected leaders to review the logic and
alternatives on transportation systems so a user friendly
program could be developed which was efficient and cost
effective for the short and long term.
Justin Liversidge, with the Deschutes County Bicycle Advisory
Committee, testified in favor of mass transportation. He felt
the bicycle should play a vital role in any mass
transportation program, i.e. bike racks on buses and at bus
stations.
Bob Slawson, Deschutes County Transportation Fund Advisory
Committee member, testified in favor of the transportation
plan. He said he would continue to work with the
elderly/disabled to make sure they received proper service.
He felt a transit district would improve, benefit and increase
the services for the elderly/disabled.
Bob Quitmeier, Community Development Director for the City of
Redmond and Planning Director for the City of Sisters,
testified in favor of the transportation district. He felt
the concept of mass transit was long overdue in Central
Oregon. It was unfortunate that there was no tri-county
participation in the project. The Cities of Redmond and
Sisters supported the concept of mass transit and the plan
before the Board. The Comprehensive Plan of Redmond
frequently mentioned mass transit and that greater emphasis
needed to be made on mass transit. The only concern he had
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 4-3-91
0106 080'7
heard regarding the plan was that Redmond was really the
economic/employment center for the tri-county area with
employees coming from Prineville, Madras, Sister, Bend, Powell
Butte and Terrebonne, however the transit district plan was
set up with Bend at the center. He was disappointed that
there wouldn't be any service for Terrebonne. He would like
to see continued interest expressed to the outlying counties
to see if Deschutes County could contract service into these
areas for people who work in Deschutes County.
Maili Tigner, Deschutes County Mental Health, said there was
a lot of emphasis on client independence for the disabled
population, mentally and emotionally ill. Part of the problem
they have with the current transportation system is that it
didn't support independence. They often spent time ferrying
their clients around to work and to community support
services. It would foster independence if they were able to
catch a bus to transport themselves. Their program paid money
for different services which could be put into a community-
based program.
Debra Jones, Executive Director of COBRA, PO Box 1086, Bend,
testified in favor of the transportation plan. She said they
would sometimes lose clients because they did not have
transportation. COBRA's philosophy was one of empowerment and
being able to act on their own behalf, and therefore lack of
mass transportation created a barrier for their clients. She
also encouraged participation throughout the tri-county area.
John Webre, Evergreen Home Services and advocate for elderly
and low-income people in Central Oregon for the past 15 years,
testified in favor of the plan. He said that Central Oregon
was becoming a huge community of retired people. There were
elderly people, who should not be driving anymore because of
physical limitations, who were driving since there weren't
many other options for them. He felt a transit district would
also help the working poor, who might need both parents to
work but were unable to afford a second car. He felt the
private businessman would be advantaged by a transit system
to help their employees get to work. As a private
businessman, he would be interested in helping to finance a
transit system.
Terry Lynch, chair of the Deschutes County Citizen for a
Transportation District and Executive Director of COCAAN, 2303
SW 1st, Redmond, testified in favor of the district. He felt
there was a critical need for a transportation district, and
the needs were growing with the influx of people into the
area. It was frightening to consider what the area would be
like in the year 2000 without a transportation district. He
admitted that if a transit system were formed, there would be
changes for the private transportation providers, however he
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 4-3-91
a y .t 0106 0808
said there would be many people who would use the system that
could not afford to pay for a taxi cab now. Mass
transportation would improve the quality of the air. Bend was
the most populated region in Oregon and Washington without a
transportation system. The income from the transit system
would not cover the costs, nor did it with other public
services. He urged the Commissioners to adopt the plan as a
resource document and provide the necessary leadership and
support as the process moved forward.
Betty Marquette, PO Box 1138, Sisters, was in support of the
transportation plan, but felt it had not gone far enough. She
felt that transporting children to and from school should be
included into the transportation district plan. She felt the
local residents would use a transportation system if the
timetables were stable and the service was dependable.
Mike Wilder, who operated a towing business, testified in
support of the transportation district, however, he did not
feel that support vehicles for the district would be cost
effective. He suggested that the costs of providing those
support vehicles be compared to the costs of using existing
private businesses before any purchases were made.
There being no one else who wished to testify, the public
hearing was closed
SCHLANGEN: I move adoption of Resolution 91-128.
THROOP: I second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
~/I MAUDLIN: YES
DESCHUTJS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
EThr o Co i ssioner
~en Commissioner
o g
in, Ch irman
BOCC:alb
PAGE 9 MINUTES: 4-3-91
r
0106 0809
Citizens for a Transportation District
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Final Report
Prepared By
Weslin Consulting Services
For
Deschutes County
March, 1991
0106 0810
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(page 1 of 2)
SECTION PAGE
CHAPTER I: Introduction
Local Transportation History . . . . . . . . . . I- 1
General Public Services . . . . . . . . . . I- 1
Taxi, Limousine & Motor Bus Services I- 1
Special Transportation Services . . . I- 1
Transportation District Background . . . . . . . I- 3
District Formation Issues . . . . . . . . . I- 5
District Formation Requirements . . . I- 5
District Boundary Alternatives . . . . I- 6
CHAPTER II: Planning Process
Service Planning Approach . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
1
Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
1
Preliminary Planning . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
1
Review of Service Options . . . . . . .
. II-
2
Final Development of Service Options . .
. II-
2
Population Growth and Distribution . . . . .
. II-
2
Population Distribution . . . . . . . .
. II-
2
Employment Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
3
Demographic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
4
Senior citizens . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
4
Low Income Persons . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
6
Geographic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
7
Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
7
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
7
Shopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
7
Community Involvement Program . . . . . . . .
. II-
7
Service Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-
8
CHAPTER 111: Development Of Alternatives
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimating Costs of Service Options
Identification of Service Options . . . .
City of Bend Local Service . . . . .
City of Redmond Local Service . . .
Inter-community Service to Redmond,
Sisters, Bend, Sunriver and Lapine .
Inter-community Service Between Bend
and Redmond . . . . . . . . . . . .
III- 1
III- 1
III- 2
III- 2
III- 2
III- 2
III- 4
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(page 2of2)
0106 0811
SECTION PAGE
North County Local Paratransit Service .
South and East County Local Paratransit
service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paratransit Service Commitment . . . . .
Saturday Service . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sunday\Holiday Service . . . . . . . . .
Night Service . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transit Service Alternatives . . . . . . .
Baseline Service Alternative . . . . . .
Maximum Service Alternative . . . . . .
Intermediate Service Alternative . . . .
CHAPTER IV: Evaluation Of Alternatives
. III- 4
. III- 4
. III- 4
. III- 4
. III- 5
. III- 5
III- 5
III- 6
. III- 6
. III- 6
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1
Technical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1
Transit Service Alternative Operating Costs . . IV- 5
CHAPTER V: Policy Recommendations
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1
Implementation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 1
Funding Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 3
Passenger Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 5
Special Transportation services . . . . . . . . V- 6
Additional Operational Considerations . . . . . V- 6
Financial Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 7
Transit System Management . . . . . . . . . . . V- 9
I
0106 0812
LIST OF FIGURES
(page 1 of 1)
FIGURE
PAGE
I-1
Special Services Transportation Providers .
I- 2
I-2
Transportation District Boundary . . . . .
I- 4
I-3
Goals and Objectives . . . . .
I- 8
I-4
Seven Desired Qualities of the Deschutes
County Transportation District . . . . . .
I- 9
I-5
Fixed Route and Paratransit Operating Costs
in Selected Communities in Washington State
I-10
II-1
Deschutes County Population 1950-2000 . . .
II- 3
II-2
Major Deschutes County Employers . . . . .
II- 5
II-3
Service Alternatives and Population Served
II- 9
II-4
Alternative Ranking Criteria . . . . . . .
II-10
II-5
Service and Policy Alternative
Consolidation and Prioritization . . . . .
II-11
III-1
Service Options . . . . . . . . . . . .
III- 3
III-2
Service Category Scoring . . . . . . . . .
III- 7
III-3A
Baseline and Intermediate Service Options .
III- 8
III-3B
Maximum Service Option . . . . . . . . . .
III- 9
III-4
Analysis of Service Concepts . . . . . . .
III-10
III-5
Allocation of Service Resources to
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . .
III-11
III-6
Annual Hours of Service By Alternative . .
III-12
IV-1
Evaluation Criteria and Ratings . . . . . .
IV- 2
IV-2
Baseline Service Options . . . . . . . . .
IV- 3
IV-3
Intermediate Service Options . . . . . . .
IV- 4
IV-4
Maximum Service Options . . . . . . . . . .
IV- 6
IV-5
Technical Evaluation Summary . . . . . . .
IV- 7
V-1A
Baseline Service Alternative Regional
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V- 2
V-1B
Baseline Service Alternative Local
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V- 2
V-2
Financial Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V- 9
V-3
Annual Operating Cost By Alternative. . . .
V-12
V-4
Annual Operating Cost By Service Class . . .
V-13
V-5
Operating Costs By Alternative . . . . . . .
V-14
V-6
Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . .
V-15
V-7
Revenues and Expenses 1993-2000 . . . . . .
V-16
V-8
Service Hours 1993-2000 . . . . . . . . . .
V-17
0106 0813
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTERI olds 0814
INTRODUCTION
Local Transportation History
Deschutes County has enjoyed a variety of public trans-
portation services in the past. However, no urban transit sys-
tem has been in place during that time. Service has been pro-
vided primarily by private intra- and interstate motor carriers,
by a number of private taxicab and limousine services and by
several publicly-supported services for the elderly and dis-
abled. A short description of those services follows.
General Public Services
Taxi. Limousine and Motor Bus Services
A number of privately-owned companies provide a wide va-
riety of taxicab and limousine services to residents of, and
visitors to, Deschutes County. Direct transportation is pro-
vided within the Cities of Bend and Redmond, between most com-
munities in the county and the regional airport in Redmond and
to a variety of destinations outside Deschutes County.
Currently-available services include long-haul limousine
services between Deschutes County and destinations throughout
Oregon and Washington. There is also regularly-scheduled limou-
sine service to and from the Redmond Regional Airport, and regu-
larly scheduled intra-state motor bus services to the Willamette
Valley, Portland, Klamath Falls and John Day. Transfers are
available to interstate bus lines at various locations.
Special Transportation Services
Publicly-supported dial-a-ride van services for the elderly
and disabled are provided throughout the county for a variety of
trip purposes by several public and quasi-public agencies. In-
formation and service provision is fragmented and eligibility
requirements differ between the various programs.
Special transportation services in Deschutes County, while
providing a wide range of programs, can be somewhat confusing
and intimidating to potential users. The systems, in general,
suffer from a fragmentation of responsibility and information
sources which detracts from the overall utility and efficiency
of offered services.
0106 0815
Because of the large number of operators in the Deschutes
county service area, the operating information from these ser-
vice providers has been summarized in tabular rather than in
narrative form (see Table I below.)
FIGURE 1-1
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT PLAN
Special Services Transportation Providers
(Page I of 2)
Primary
Lift
Dial-A
Taxi
Service
Vehicle
System
on Bus
Ride
Script
Area
Owner
All Outdoors
Yes
No
No
Statewide
All
Outdoors
Central Oregon
Yes
Yes
No
Countywide
COCOA
Council on Aging
Outside Ben
d
(COCOA)
City of Bend
Yes
Yes
No
Bend Urban
United
Dia-A-Ride
Area
Senior
Citizens
of Bend
Deschutes County
N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
Trans-
Mental Health
Central
Public
Trans.
Opportunity Found.
Yes
No
No
Countywide
OF
of Central Oregon
(OF)
Residential
No
No
No
Countywide
RAP
Assist. Program
(RAP)
2
0106 0816
FIGURE 1-1
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT PLAN
Special Services Transportation Providers
(Page 2 of 2)
System
All Outdoors
Spec'1 Cont- Cent-
Primary Program Major Driver ract ral
service Adminis- Funding Train- Serv- Dis-
Provider stration Source ing ices patch
Same Same STF No No Yes
Central Oregon
Same
Same
STF, Co. Yes
No
Yes
Council on Aging
Gen. Fund
City of Bend
City of
STF, City
STF, Co. Yes
No
Yes
Dial-A-Ride
Bend
of Bend
Bend Gen.
Pub. Works
Fund
Deschutes County
Same
DCMH
N/A N/A
Yes
N/A
Mental Health
(DCMH )
Opportunity Found.
Same
Same
STF, Yes
Yes
No
of Central Oregon
Mental
Health
Fund
Residential Same Same
Assist. Program
Transportation District Background
STF, Yes
Mental
Health
Fund
No No
Deschutes County is situated in the rapidly-growing central
Oregon region. It is economically supported by the wood
products, manufacturing and light manufacturing industries and
to a lesser, but significant, extent by tourism. While a number
of programs exist for the purpose of providing public trans-
portation for the elderly and the disabled, there are few public
transportation alternatives available to the majority of the
indigenous and transient population for making intra-county
trips.
3
0106 0817
Lacking the financial means to establish a publicly-sup-
ported transit agency without an additional funding base, the
citizens of Deschutes County desire to form a legal entity to
facilitate the financing and operation of such a system. The
Oregon State legislature has provided the legal mechanism nec-
essary to accomplish that goal. By forming a transportation
district, the county and its citizens can acquire the legal
means to establish a public transit system in Deschutes County
as well as to levy taxes in support of public transportation op-
erations and services.
It is desired to form a Transportation District which in-
cludes the entirety of Deschutes County. (see Figure I-2) The
Citizens for a Transportation District wish to present to the
voters of the proposed Transportation District service area a
transit plan for their approval. Approval of this plan would
levy a ad valorem property tax-to fund public transportation op-
erations and capital facilities of the newly-created entity.
The transportation district must have majority voter ap-
proval on any local transit taxing proposals at the same voter
referendum approving creation of the district.
FIGURE 1-2
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT PLAN
Transportation District Boundary
Weslin Consulting Services, 1991
4
0106 0818
District Formation Issues
A number of issues must be resolved before the certifi-
cation measure is placed upon the ballot. A summary of those
issues is presented here to set the framework for the develop-
ment of the comprehensive transportation improvement plan.
District Formation Requirements
Before initiating a petition to form a transportation dis-
trict, the Deschutes County Citizens for a Transportation Dis-
trict are required by Oregon law to accomplish the following
tasks:
o Submit a feasibility statement covering the first
three years of planned district operations. This
statement must be filed prior to the circulation of a
petition calling for district formation
o Submit an initiating petition, which must contain any
proposed funding base and tax rate assumed in the
feasibility statement, calling upon the county to
place the certification measure on the ballot. An al-
ternate method of placing the measure on the ballot
has also been included in state authorizing legisla-
tion and is summarized later in this section.
o Ensure that district directors are also elected during
the same election as that at which the certifying mea-
sure is submitted
o If the district is to be funded by ad valorem tax rev-
enues, ensure that both the question of forming the
district and of approving the proposed funding base is
included in a single ballot measure
Oregon law allows the placing on the ballot of the cer-
tifying measure, creating a transportation district, in one of
two ways:
o An initiative petition, signed by at least 100 reg-
istered voters, urging the County government to call
the certifying election, "at the same time as an elec-
tion at which it is permissible to establish a tax
base", or
o a petition or resolution adopted by the governing body
of the most populous city in the proposed district, in
this case, the City of Bend, calling upon the county
to place the certifying measure on the ballot as
stated above.
5
o1®s C819
Oregon State law seems clear that no matter which method of
district formation is chosen, the requirement for the prior sub-
mission of a feasibility statement remains in effect. If the
economic feasibility statement requires the levying of ad val-
orem taxes, state law also requires that the question of forma-
tion and of approval of the revenue tax base must be submitted
to the voters at the next election as a single ballot question.
An additional qualification to the formation process is
that, under Oregon law, revenue measures may be submitted to the
voters only in even-numbered years. This means that the first
available opportunity to submit the question to Deschutes County
voters will be in the spring of 1992.
District Boundary Alternatives
A Transportation District boundary may include a partial
county, countywide, or a multi-county area. However, no matter
what district boundaries are chosen at first, the boundaries of
the District may be expanded at a later time via annexation pro-
cedures. The annexation process may be initiated by one of the
following methods: 1) request of a city; 2) voter petition; or
3) District authority. Majority voter approval is required to
ratify the annexation and implement the local tax collection in
the annexed area.
A major issue to be resolved prior to transportation dis-
trict certification is the determination of district boundaries.
Because a majority of those living within the proposed boundary
must ratify the district formation and funding base, the bound-
ary issue must be decided before elections are held. In the
case of Deschutes County, there is a clear predisposition to in-
clude the entire county in the proposed transportation district.
There are, however, a number of issues relating to that policy
which should be considered.
The first consideration relates to the perceived popularity
of forming a transportation district within all subareas of the
county. If the certification election is seen as a "close
call", areas which seem less likely to ratify such district for-
mation might be excluded from the proposed district. This may
help insure passage of the measure within the reduced bound-
aries. District exclusions could include areas having a large
proportion of residents living on fixed incomes who may be unre-
ceptive to supporting additional taxes or areas which are un-
likely to receive substantial direct benefits from the opera-
tions of the proposed district.
The second major consideration concerns the costs of pro-
posed services to certain sub-areas of the proposed district.
Portions of the proposed district which are geographically dis-
6
0106 0820
tant from the major population centers may have expectations of
additional services as a result of contributing to the dis-
trict's tax base. The provision of services to such areas may
increase costs to the district substantially in excess of tax
collections from those areas. In a financially-conservative
system, the costs of including such areas within the district
could outweigh the perceived benefits.
Both of these considerations are relevant in the present
deliberations concerning the proposed district boundaries. The
costs of including the extreme southeastern portion of Deschutes
County in the District should be carefully weighed with respect
to the benefits to the district of their inclusion. The commu-
nities of Millican, Brothers and Hampton are geographically re-
mote and economically dissimilar to the communities of the cen-
tral and western portions of the county. While there are few
economic reasons to offer additional services to these communi-
ties, there may be demands for such services once residents be-
gin contributing taxes to the district.
There are also many good reasons for including the entire
county within the District. Such an action would remove the re-
sponsibility for providing transportation services completely
from the County government and make the District the focal point
for all public transportation issues within Deschutes County.
The economies of consolidation and scale could also result in
lower overall transportation costs for county citizens and would
serve to identify the District with transportation to all county
citizens. The Deschutes County Citizens for a Transportation
District should give considerable thought to both sides of this
issue before deciding upon final District boundaries.
A Transportation District operates independently from other
local governmental bodies. Its only function is to provide pub-
lic transportation for all citizens within the designated bene-
fit area. The Deschutes County Transportation District is to be
comprised of seven Board Members, elected at-large from the pro-
posed transportation district service area at the same election
in which the district formation and funding base are ratified.
A major ingredient of a successful Transportation District
is a transit plan which identifies expectations and how they are
to be achieved. These expectations are embodied by goals and
objectives developed to clearly state the District's vision of
its future. The District's preliminary goals and objectives are
listed in Figure I-3. Such goals and objectives should be
reevaluated and ratified by the new District Board after elec-
tion to office.
The District Board also must develop a mission statement.
The purpose of the mission statement is to embody in a single
7
0106 0821
sentence the most significant achievements the agency expects to
accomplish. The following mission statement has been suggested:
The mission of the Deschutes County Transportation District is to aggressively pursue a
balanced transportation improvement program to ensure the region sustains strong
economic growth while protecting livability. Ensure progress is made in each mayor
area: 1) District formation; 2) Consolidation of services; 3) Plan for service im-
provements.
FIGURE 1-3
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Goals and Objectives
o "First, do no harm." Existing services must not be
adversely affected by district formation.
o Identify ways to assist existing transit providers to
deliver service more economically to as many
passengers as possible through economies of scale.
o Provide three viable service improvement options in-
cluding a financial plan for capital acquisition,
maintenance, operations, and depreciation.
o Provide several funding options for service improve-
ments, allowable in the State of Oregon.
A number of attributes have been identified which reflect a
vision of what the future transit system should become:
o Bring together the communities which make up the
Transportation District,
o Be accessible to all population segments in the commu-
nities in which it operates,
o Be pleasant to use,
o Vehicles should be clean and pleasing to the eye,
o Be compatable with other existing and planned modes of
public and private transportation,
8
A
0106 0822
o Be efficiently operated,
o Convey an image of quality and dependability.
The purpose of these attributes is to convey to the public
as succinctly as possible the most predominant qualities that
are expected to be represented by a new transit system. None of
these qualities are necessarily of any greater importance than
the others.
FIGURE 1-4
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Seven Desired Qualities Of The Deschutes County
Transportation District
Efficient Accessible
Pleasant Compatable
High Quality unifying
Attractive
9
A
FIGURE 1-5 0106 0823
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Fixed Route and Paratransit Operating Costs
in Selected Communities in Washington State
Population (Thousands)
0 50 100 150 200 250
C-Tran
Kitsap
Ben Franklin
Intercity Transit .
Whatcom
Grays Harbor
Everett
Clallam
Yakima
Valley Transit
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Annual Operating Cost (Millions)
Population ® Fixed-route 0 Paratransit
Westin Consulting Services, 1990
10
010 6 0824
Chapter II
PLANNING PROCESS
010 6 0826
Review of Service Options --The preliminary transit ser-
vices were reviewed for the purpose of identifying transporta-
tion concerns and identifying potential problems. Desired
changes and additions were identified and agreed upon at this
time. The information gathered through review with the DCCTD
Board was used in the development of revised transit service
options.
Final Development of Service options Information gath-
ered in the review phase was used to prepare the final list of
service options. At this stage, detailed route descriptions,
schedules, vehicle requirements, service hour requirements,
capital facilities inventories and operating cost estimates
were prepared.
Population Growth and Distribution
The market potential and peer group analysis identified
the need and potential for transit services by examining
available community population, employment and demographic
characteristics. This analysis used information obtained from
the State of Oregon Department of Human Resources, Deschutes
County Planning, the City of Bend, the City of Redmond and the
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council. Employment data was
obtained from several sources, including State of Oregon Busi-
ness and Employment Outlook, Deschutes County, Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council and local chambers of commerce.
Population in Deschutes County has tended to grow at a
greater rate over the past few decades than has the State of
Oregon as a whole as shown in Figure II-1. Official popula-
tion estimates for Deschutes County are prepared by Portland
State University's Center for Population Research and Census
and are felt by many to be quite conservative. According to
this official source, population within Deschutes County in
1989 totaled approximately 70,600.
Population Distribution
of the estimated county area population, approximately
26,000 persons, a little over one-third of the total, reside
within the Bend or Redmond corporate limits. Of the total
population of Deschutes County, over thirty-nine percent (39%)
reside in unincorporated areas.
II-2
FIGURE II-1 0106 C827
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Deschutes Coun Population
1950-200
POPULATION (Thousands)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Source: Portland State University
Prepared by Weslin Consulting Services
These findings have certain implications for the provi-
sion of public transportation services. With nearly one-half
of the population of the Transportation District service area
residing in and adjacent to the cities of Bend and Redmond,
these two communities offer the greatest market for public
transit.
The rural areas of LaPine, Sisters and Sunriver as well
as the less-populous rural areas in the southeastern portion
of the county represent, collectively nearly one-half the pop-
ulation of Deschutes County. Since these rural areas are
sparsely populated, providing public transportation services
to this dispersed, yet substantial, population presents a con-
siderable challenge to the District.
Employment Factors
Typically, one of the major trip-purposes served by pub-
II-3
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990E 2000E
• 0196 0829
FIGURE II-2
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Major Deschutes County Employers
(Page 1 of 2)
NAME
EMPLOYEES CITY
Bend Millwork Systems
1700
Bend
St. Charles Medical Center
1000
Bend
Bend/La Pine School Dist
980
Bend
Mt. Bachelor Inc.
700
Bend
Sunriver Properties
600
Bend
Redmond School District
423
Redmond
Deschutes County
400
Bend
D A W Plywood & Remanufacturin
377
Redmond
D A W Forest Products
350
Bend
Deschutes National Forest
350
Bend
Beaver Coaches
250
Bend
Eagle Crest Partners
250
Bend
Central Oregon Dist. Hospital
240
Redmond
Inn of the 7th Mountain
225
Bend
Eagle Crest Resort
220
Redmond
City of Bend
215
Bend
Shopko
200
Bend
Willamette Industries
200
Bend
Central Oregon Comm. Coll
170
Bend
Riverhouse Motor Inn
170
Bend
Fuqua Homes
165
Bend
Opportunity Center
140
Redmond
Tektronix
140
Redmond
Safeway
130
Bend
Bend Memorial Clinic
125
Bend
K-Mart
120
Bend
The Bulletin
115
Bend
Wagner's Supermarket (South)
110
Bend
Sears, Roebuck and Co.
105
Bend
Ponderosa Moulding
101
Redmond
Wagner's Supermarket (North)
100
Bend
Food Value
92
Bend
Safeway
80
Redmond
Source: Bend Chamber of Commerce, 1990; Redmond Chamber of
Commerce, 1990; Central Oregon Business Factbook, 1988
II-5
0106 0830
FIGURE II-2
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Major Deschutes County Employers
(Page 2 of 2)
NAME
EMPLOYEES
CITY
Bon Marche
75
Bend
City of Redmond
74
Redmond
Bend Research
70
Bend
Cascade Pine Specialties
70
Sisters
Irwin Saw Company
70
Redmond
Wagner's Supermarket
70
Redmond
Central Electric Co-op
67
Redmond
Advanced Power Technology
66
Bend
COCAN/COCOA
66
Redmond
U.S. National Bank
65
Bend
Redmond Wood Products
60
Redmond
Food 4 Less
55
Bend
Redmond Health Care Center
54
Redmond
First Interstate Bank
51
Bend
Nosler Bullets
51
Bend
Bob Thomas Chevrolet
50
Bend
Emporium, Inc
50
Bend
Harold Barclay Logging
50
Sisters
Juniper Fuel
50
Redmond
Robberson Ford
50
Bend
Thomas Sales & Service
50
Bend
U.S. West Communications
50
Bend
Source: Bend Chamber of Commerce, 1990; Redmond Chamber of
Commerce, 1990; Central Oregon Business Factbook, 1988
Low Income Persons It has been estimated that more
than one resident in eight in Deschutes County may be classi-
fied as a low-income person. This category included over
8,700 persons countywide in 1986. In 1989, 45 percent of all
county households had incomes of less than $20,000 per year.
Income studies suggest that even as the economy has ex-
panded, the poor generally have not participated in that ex-
pansion. Indeed, studies suggest that the percentage of the
population living below the poverty line has increased during
II-6
0106 0831
the 1980s. Generally, lower incomes, particularly when those
lower incomes are manifested by a reduced auto ownership, may
suggest an expanded market for public transportation services.
Geographic Factors
Certain other geographic factors also tend to expand the
potential demand for transit in Deschutes County. These in-
clude major shopping, educational and health care facilities
in Bend and Redmond. Many of the constituent communities in
the proposed Transportation District contain modest shopping,
medical and educational facilities.
Health Care While some medical facilities exist out-
side of the immediate Bend area, most surgical and medical
specialty procedures require trips into Bend from a wide sur-
rounding area for residents of the smaller communities. Be-
cause of the large number of children, elderly and low-income
persons living outside of the central Bend core area, the po-
tential for medical trips by those unable to drive to and from
Bend from outlying areas appears substantial.
Education The only post-high school educational insti-
tution in the region, Central Oregon Community College, is lo-
cated in Bend. While a majority of students show local area
zip codes as their permanent residences, there are a substan-
tial number of students traveling to COCC from all over De-
schutes County. To the extent that future services meet the
needs of COCC students and faculty, COCC should be considered
a major potential market for public transit.
Shopping The three largest traditional shopping areas
in Deschutes County are in Bend area. The Bend River Mall,
the Mountain View Mall and downtown Bend's retail core have
all been identified as the major retail areas to which trans-
portation is desired by area residents. Specialty shopping
areas in the smaller communities such as Sisters and Sunriver
may also be expected to draw some interest, but can be ex-
pected to have a smaller influence upon transit ridership ac-
tivity.
Community Involvement Program
The most important aspect of the development of the tran-
sit plan for Deschutes County is the participation of the pub-
lic it is designed to serve. Therefore, an intensive public
participation program should be undertaken prior to any sub-
mission to the voters.
II-7
0106 0832
The foundation of the community involvement program is
the establishment of one or more Citizen's Advisory Groups. A
potential alignment might have one group representing the
Bend-Redmond urban area, a second group representing the rural
areas to the north and east of Bend and Redmond and a third
representing the rural areas to the south and east of Bend.
Each of these three Citizen's Advisory Groups would be
represented by its chairperson, or other designated represen-
tative, on a District-wide Steering Committee. The Steering
Committee can also include other prominent individuals who
have a special interest or knowledge of public transportation.
During the development of support for the ballot measure,
meetings with these groups and the Steering Committee would be
conducted for the purpose of developing marketing strategies
for the geographic subareas, distributing literature to the
constituent communities, soliciting volunteers to assist in
the marketing effort, establishing and staffing a speakers'
bureau, assisting with fundraising tasks and keeping the tran-
sit issue alive and visible in the most positive manner possi-
ble.
Service Planning Issues
The consultant considered potential transit services
identified by the officials and citizens who have been inter-
viewed. After reviewing the list of desired transit services,
the service concepts and policies were refined to a prelimi-
nary list of potential services. This consolidated list of
potential services is listed in Figure II-3.
A priority setting exercise was used to identify the rel-
ative ranking of the services and policies. The priority set-
ting exercise involved ranking each of the potential service
options according to the goals and objectives developed. Each
alternative was given a subjective score between 0 and 4, re-
flecting the degree to which that alternative fulfilled the
system goals and objectives. The results of that exercise are
summarized in Figure II-5 which shows a ranked ordering of the
service and policy alternatives based on the scores received.
II-8
FIGURE II-3
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Service Alternatives And Population Served
0106 0833
Alternative
Local feeder service
Tourist service
Commuter service
65+ and disabled service
Service to shopping
and medical
Connections to Amtrak
and Greyhound
Express or local service
Regional service to
airport and college
Local loops using
regional buses
Service for students
Special events
Commuter service
Regional services
Connect cities with
regional service
Rural feeder service
Door-to-door service
Commuter and Regional
Community-to-community
Shopping related
Greyhound Alternative
Local loop and
community-to-community
Social or special events
Late night relief
Convenient
Population Served
City residents
Tourists
Workers
Seniors and disabled
Everyone
Travelers
Workers
Travelers, students,
faculty
Neighborhoods
K-12 students
Everyone
Workers
Everyone
Everyone
People in outlying areas
Seniors and disabled
Workers, everyone
Everyone
Everyone
Everyone
Neighborhoods, everyone
Everyone
Everyone
Everyone
11-9
0106 0834
FIGURE II-4
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Alternative Ranking Criteria
1 Population served
Commuters
Elderly/Disabled
Students
Tourists
Shoppers
Low income
2 Trip purposes served
Work
School
Personal business
Medical/Dental
Recreation
3 Projected ridership
4 Operating cost
5 Serves need not currently met
6 Efficiency and cost effectiveness
7 Comfort and Convenience
II-10
0106 0835
FIGURE II-5
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Service and Policy Alternative
Consolidation and Prioritization
Selection
Criteria
service and Policy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Alternative
Regional service
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
21
Intercity service
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
21
Local feeder service
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
20
Elderly/disabled service
1
4
1
4
4
2
4
20
Rural feeder service
2
4
1
4
3
2
4
20
Connect cities to
regional service
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
19
Door-to-door service
4
4
2
1
3
1
4
19
Shopping/medical service
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
18
Airport/college service
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
18
Late night service
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
17
Student services
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
16
Express service
2
1
3
1
4
1
3
15
Local loops/regional bus
2
3
2
4
2
1
1
15
Special events
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
15
Commuter service
3
1
2
1
4
1
2
14
Amtrak/Greyhound
connections
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
13
Greyhound alternative
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
13
Tourist service
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
12
This list of locally desired transit services was used by
the consultant team to prepare transit service options. These
options serve as the basis for packaging transit services into
alternative plans as described in the next chapter.
II-11
0106 0836
Chapter III
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
0106 083'7
CHAPTER 111
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
The first stage of service planning resulted in a list of
service options that were subsequently refined for further
analysis and eventual incorporation into four alternatives.
The purpose of this chapter of the transit plan is to explain
how the process was conducted. The first section identifies
the service options and the second section presents how those
options were allocated to the three alternatives.
Estimating Costs of Service Options
The precise estimation of the cost of operating public
transportation services depends upon a number of variables.
Wage rates, work rules, materials costs, management policies
and ownership arrangements all contribute to the specific cost
of providing public transportation services.
Surveys of systems operating in areas of similar size and
characteristics to those of Deschutes County demonstrate a
wide diversity of unit operating costs. Typically, the cost
of providing fixed-route bus services ranges from $35 to $55
per revenue hour. The costs of providing paratransit services
range from $20 to $40 per revenue hour.
In the interest of ensuring that operating cost estimates
quoted in this report are sufficient to cover recommended ser-
vices, the consultant has maintained a conservative bias to-
ward the unit operating costs used to estimate system revenue
requirements. For that reason, operating costs near the top
of the expected range have been applied. For fixed route ser-
vices, an estimate of $50.00 per revenue hour has been assumed
while an estimated $35.00 per revenue hour has been included
in paratransit cost calculations.
Actual operating experience may result in lower unit
costs than those assumed in the preparation of the financial
component of the Deschutes County Plan. However, the consult-
ant feels that a conservative approach to financing the opera-
tion of a new system is the preferred course and is confident
that the Deschutes County Transportation District will be able
to fund the operation of proposed system services within the
operating budget described in this chapter.
. 0106 0838
Identification of Service Options
Figure III-1 lists thirty-three service options including
their annual operating costs and transit vehicle requirements.
Those service options that are essential for a minimum level
of service in the benefit area were identified and included in
all three of the alternatives subsequently defined in this
chapter. All thirty-three service options are included in the
Maximum Alternative. The primary purpose of the following
section is to describe the content of the various service op-
tions and how the Intermediate Alternative was developed to
represent a level of service that would fall between the Base-
line and the Maximum Alternatives. The following describes
each of the categories of service options that are included in
Figure III-1.
City of Bend Local Service These routes serve the
neighborhoods within the City of Bend. Service is initially
assumed to operate between approximately 6 A.M. and 7 P.M.
weekdays at a frequency of one trip per hour. These are shown
in Figure III-1 as:
o 3 Route C Weekdays every hour
o 4 Route D Weekdays every hour
City of Redmond Local service This route serves the
neighborhoods around the City of Redmond. Service is ini-
tially assumed to operate between approximately 6 A.M. and 7
P.M. weekdays. Trips are spaced at intervals of one hour.
This is listed in Figure III-1 as:
o 5 Route E Weekdays every hour
Inter-community Service to Redmond, Sisters, Bend, Sun-
river and Lapine This service operates in its northern sec-
tor along Highway 126 between Redmond and Sisters, along High-
way 20 between Sisters and Bend and along Highway 97 between
Bend and La Pine, serving those communities and Tumalo and
Sunriver. This service is designed to provide transportation
among and between those communities. Service in the southern
sector would extend as far south as La Pine and allows for
some local circulation within the Sunriver development.
Four daily round trips will be initially provided between
the hours of 6 A.M. and 7 P.M., spaced approximately every
three hours. This route is included in Figure III-1 as:
o 2 Route B Weekday 4 Trips
o 8 Route B Weekday 4 Add'1 Trips
111-2
010 6 0839
FIGURE 111-1
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Service Options
SERVICE OPTIONS COST VEHICLES
1.
Rt
A
Weekday 1/Hour
$165,500
1 Bus
2.
Rt
B
Weekday 4 Trips
178,200
1 Bus
3.
Rt
C
Weekday 1/Hour
165,500
1 Bus
4.
Rt
D
Weekday 1/Hour
172,900
1 Bus
5.
Rt
E
Weekday 1/Hour
188,700
1 Bus
6.
Rt
F
Weekday Variable
115,100
1 Van
7.
Rt
G
Weekday Variable
115,100
1 Van
8.
Rt
B
Weekday 4 Add'1 Trips
178,200
1 Bus
9.
Rt
A
Saturday 1/Hr
34,000
10.
Rt
B
Saturday 4 Trips
36,600
11.
Rt
B
Saturday 4 Add'1 Trips
36,600
12.
Rt
C
Saturday 1/Hour
34,000
13.
Rt
D
Saturday 1/Hour
35,500
14.
Rt
E
Saturday 1/Hour
38,800
15.
Rt
F
Saturday Variable
23,700
16.
Rt
G
Saturday Variable
23,700
17.
Rt
A
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hr
39,300
18.
Rt
B
Sunday/Holiday 4 Trips
42,300
19.
Rt
C
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
39,300
20.
Rt
D
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
41,000
21.
Rt
E
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
44,800
22.
Rt
F
Sunday/Holiday Variable
27,300
23.
Rt
G
Sunday/Holiday Variable
27,300
24.
Rt
A
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
25.
Rt
B
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
26.
Rt
C
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
27.
Rt
D
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
28.
Rt
E
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
29.
Rt
F
Weekday Night Variable
17,700
30.
Rt
G
Weekday Night Variable
17,700
31.
Paratransit Commitment
243,300
3 Vans
32.
Paratransit Saturday Commit
21,800
33.
Paratransit Sun/Hol Commitment 51,600
111-3
0106 0840
Inter-community Service Between Bend and Redmond This
service operates along U.S. Highway 97 between the cities of
Redmond and Bend. It is anticipated that all trips will
operate via the Redmond Airport.
Initially, service would be provided at hourly intervals
weekdays between the hours of 6 A.M. and 7 P.M. This route is
included in Figure III-1 as:
o 1 Route A Weekday 1/Hour
North County Local Paratransit service This service
will operate with a 12- or 15-passenger van in and around the
triangle formed by the cities of Redmond, Bend and Sisters.
This route is designed to operate door-to-door demand response
service on an advance reservation basis between 6:00 A.M. and
7:00 P.M. weekdays. This is listed in Figure III-1 as:
o 6 Route F Weekday Variable
South and East County Local Paratransit Service This
service will operate with 12- or 15-passenger van in the re-
gion south and southeast of the City of Bend. This route, as
Route F above, is designed to operate door-to-door demand re-
sponse service on an advance reservation basis between 6:00
A.M. and 7:00 P.M. weekdays.
Service is provided between
munities via the secondary county
ble, operating on Highways 20 and
This is included in Figure III-1
the smaller constituent com-
road system whenever possi-
97 only when necessary.
as:
o 7 Route G Weekday Variable
Paratransit Service Commitment These services may be
reserved for the disabled and/or for the elderly or they may
be available to the general public. While no specific para-
transit projects have been identified at this time, it is felt
that a commitment equivalent to at least 10 percent of all
base system service hours is desirable and necessary to assure
the continued health of these services. This is included in
Figure III-1 as:
0 31 Paratransit Commitment
0 32 Paratransit Saturday Commitment
0 33 Paratransit Sunday/Holiday Commitment
Saturday Service While all of the service options in-
cluded above contain only weekday service, a need for Saturday
service exists. Therefore, an option has been identified for
implementing Saturday services on most routes.
111-4
0106 0841
o 9 Route A Saturday
o 10 Route B Saturday
o 11 Route B Saturday
o 12 Route C Saturday
o 13 Route D Saturday
o 14 Route E Saturday
o 15 Route F Saturday
o 16 Route G Saturday
1/Hour
4 Trips
4 Add'1 trips
1/Hour
1/Hour
1/Hour
Variable
Variable
Sunday/Holiday Service A need for Sunday and Holiday
service also exists. The third phase of services has been
developed for implementing Sunday and Holiday Services on most
routes.
o 17 Route A Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
o 18 Route B Sunday/Holiday 4 Trips
o 19 Route C Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
o 20 Route D Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
o 21 Route E Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
o 22 Route F Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
o 23 Route G Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
Night Service While the basic service options for most
services included service only until 7:00 P.M., some level of
evening and night service might be desirable. Therefore, sev-
eral routes have been identified which might support some
level of night and evening service, until 9:00 P.M. in the
future.
0 24 Route A Weekday Night
0 25 Route B Weekday Night
0 26 Route C Weekday Night
0 27 Route D Weekday Night
0 28 Route E Weekday Night
0 29 Route F Weekday Night
0 30 Route G Weekday Night
Transit Service Alternatives
One of the tasks in the planning process was to determine
the service options to be included in each alternative. The
first step was to decide which service options should be in-
cluded in both the Baseline and Maximum Service Alternatives.
The next step was to make a determination of priorities among
the various service options to identify which elements were
included in the Intermediate Service Alternative.
Three service development alternatives were identified
for further study and evaluation. These three may be briefly
categorized as the Baseline, Intermediate and the Maximum Ser-
111- 5
. 0106 0842
vice Alternatives. The essential ingredients of each alterna-
tive are discussed below.
Baseline Service Alternative The Baseline Service Al-
ternative provides a foundation for transit operations of the
Deschutes County Transportation District. It represents
service which is fundamental to the support of public
transportation services in the service area.
The Baseline provides for weekday bus service between
Bend and Redmond; and between Redmond and La Pine, connecting
the communities of Redmond, Sisters, Bend, Sunriver and La
Pine. This service is supplemented by additional van services
throughout the county.
The Baseline also includes local bus service within the
cities of Bend and Redmond during the same time periods. Ser-
vice on all Baseline routes would run between approximately
6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. A commitment for additional paratran-
sit service in the amount of $243,300 is also included in the
Baseline.
Maximum Service Alternative The Maximum Service Alter-
native includes the elements of the Baseline, supplemented by
an array of additional services. In this alternative, all
Baseline services are further extended to operate on
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. In addition, weeknight
service until at least 9 P.M. is included for most services.
The Maximum also allows for increased frequency of ser-
vice on some of the Baseline routes to improve the functional
integrity of the system and to improve the ease and reli-
ability of passenger transfers between system services.
Intermediate Service Alternative The service level in
the Intermediate Service Alternative lies between the extremes
of the Baseline and the Maximum. A priority setting exercise
similar to the one described in Chapter II was used to
identify the relative ranking of the following categories of
service improvements:
1. Extension of Service to Sundays and Holidays
2. Extension of Service to later at night
3. Extension of Service to Saturdays
The results of the process are included in Figure III-3A
and Figure III-3B.
111 -6
0106 6843
FIGURE III-2
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Service Category Scoring
selection criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
Saturday service 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 19
Sunday service 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 15
Weeknight service 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 16
Based upon the results of the prioritization process, it
was determined to include the Saturday service alternatives in
the Intermediate alternative and include weeknight and Sun-
day/Holiday service only in the Maximum Alternative. The
three alternatives, and their included service options are
summarized in Figure III-4.
The conclusion of this process of developing a progres-
sive set of alternatives resulted in the allocation of service
resources to each of the three alternatives as described in
Figure III-5. The amount of service that was finally included
in the Intermediate Alternative represented a nineteen percent
cost increase over the Baseline.
Figures III-6 shows the relative difference in service
levels among the three alternatives in terms of annual
hours of transit vehicle operation. The Baseline includes
47,100 hours of service. This level of service is in-
creased to 72,700 hours in the Intermediate Alternative and
99,300 in the Maximum Service Alternative.
Fourteen transit vehicles are required to support the
Baseline Alternative. This includes eight buses and six
vans.
The Maximum Service Alternative requires a fleet of
fifteen transit vehicles composed of nine buses and six vans.
These vehicles represent the increased vehicle requirements
over existing paratransit vehicles currently in use. A por-
tion of existing paratransit services to the elderly and dis-
abled are currently provided to public agencies by private en-
tities, and many existing agencies use their own vehicles for
client transportation. It is assumed, at least in the short
run, that such contractual arrangements will continue.
111-7
0100 0844
FIGURE III-3A
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Baseline and Intermediate Service Options
SERVICE OPTIONS
BASELINE ALTERNATIVE
COST VEHICLES
1.
Rt
A Weekday
1/Hour
$165,500
1
Bus
2.
Rt
B Weekday
4 Trips
178,200
1
Bus
3.
Rt
C Weekday
1/Hour
165,500
1
Bus
4.
Rt
D Weekday
1/Hour
172,900
1
Bus
5.
Rt
E Weekday
1/Hour
188,700
1
Bus
6.
Rt
F Weekday
Variable
115,100
1
Van
7.
Rt
G Weekday
Variable
115,100
1
Van
31.
Paratransit Commitment
243,300
3
Vans
10%
Contingency/Discreti
onary 134,400
3
Buses, 1 Van
TOTAL
BASELINE ALTERNATIVE
$ 1,478,700
8
buses
6
vans
INTERMEDIATE ALTERNATIVE ADDS:
9.
Rt
A
Saturday
1/Hr
34,000
10.
Rt
B
Saturday
4 Trips
36,600
12.
Rt
C
Saturday
1/Hour
34,000
13.
Rt
D
Saturday
1/Hour
35,500
14.
Rt
E
Saturday
1/Hour
38,800
15.
Rt
F
Saturday
Variable
23,700
16.
Rt
G
Saturday
Variable
23,700
32.
Paratransit Saturday Commit
21,800
8%
Contingency/Discretionary
19,800
TOTAL INTERMEDIATE $ 1,746,400 8 Buses
6 Vans
(INCLUDES BASELINE)
Most of the service provided in each of the three alter-
natives can be classified into the following categories: in-
ter-community, local and other. The other category contains a
variety of paratransit, potential commuter, demand-responsive
service, contingency, discretionary and recreational service
options.
III-8
FIGURE 111-313
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Maximum Service Options
0106 0845
SERVICE OPTIONS COST VEHICLES
MAXIMUM ALTERNATIVE ALSO ADDS:
8.
Rt
B
Weekday 4 Add'1 Trips
178,200 1 Bus
11.
Rt
B
Saturday 4 Add'1 Trips
36,600
17.
Rt
A
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
39,300
18.
Rt
B
Sunday/Holiday 4 trips
42,300
19.
Rt
C
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
39,300
20.
Rt
D
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
41,000
21.
Rt
E
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
44,800
22.
Rt
F
Sunday/Holiday Variable
27,300
23.
Rt
G
Sunday/Holiday Variable
27,300
24.
Rt
A.
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
25.
Rt
B
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
26.
Rt
C
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
27.
Rt
D
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
28.
Rt
E
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
29
Rt
F
Weekday Night Variable
17,700
30
Rt
G
Weekday Night Variable
17,700
33.
Paratransit Commitment
51,600
Contingency/Discretionary
33,800
TOTAL MAXIMUM ALTERNATIVE $ 2,457,300 9 Buses
6 Vans
(INCLUDES BASELINE AND INTERMEDIATE)
The Baseline Alternative has over thirty-five percent of
its annual operating budget dedicated to local service. This
is followed by more than twenty percent of the operating bud-
get dedicated to the regional bus operations. Although the
other two alternatives allocate a progressively larger portion
of their overall operating budget to these two categories of
service, the overall commitment to paratransit and demand-re-
sponse services is also increased in absolute terms. Further
analysis of the three alternatives is contained in the follow-
ing chapter which addresses the evaluation of the alterna-
tives.
111-9
0105 0846
FIGURE 111-4
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Analysis of Service Concepts
SERVICE CONCEPT
BASELINE
INTERMEDIATE
MAXIMUM
Sunday/Holiday Service
None
None
All
Routes
Night Service
None
None
All
Routes
Saturday Service
None
All
All
Routes
Routes
Service Improvements
None
Discretionary
Route
A
111-10
0105 084'7
FIGURE III-5
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Allocation of Service Resources to Alternatives
SERVICE OPTIONS
BASELINE
INTERMEDIATE
MAXIMUM
1.
Rt
A
Weekday 1/Hour
X
X
X
2.
Rt
B
Weekday 4 Trips
X
X
X
3.
Rt
C
Weekday 1/Hour
X
X
X
4.
Rt
D
Weekday 1/Hour
X
X
X
5.
Rt
E
Weekday 1/Hour
X
X
X
6.
Rt
F
Weekday Variable
x
X
X
7.
Rt
G
Weekday Variable
X
X
X
8.
Rt
B
Weekday 8 Trips
x
9.
Rt
A
Saturday 1/Hr
x
X
10.
Rt
B
Saturday 4 Trips
X
X
11.
Rt
B
Saturday 4 Add'1 Trips
x
12.
Rt
C
Saturday 1/Hour
X
X
13.
Rt
D
Saturday 1/Hour
x
X
14.
Rt
E
Saturday 1/Hour
X
X
15.
Rt
F
Saturday 1/Hour
X
X
16.
Rt
G
Saturday 1/Hour
X
X
17.
Rt
A
Sun/Hol 1/Hour
x
18.
Rt
B
Sun/Hol 4 Trips
x
19.
Rt
C
Sun/Hol 1/Hour
X
20.
Rt
D
Sun/Hol 1/Hour
x
21.
Rt
E
Sun/Hol 1/Hour
x
22.
Rt
F
Sun/Hol Variable
X
23.
Rt
G
Sun/Hol Variable
X
24.
Rt
A
Weeknight 1 Trip
x
25.
Rt
B
Weeknight 1 Trip
x
26.
Rt
C
Weeknight 1 Trip
X
27.
Rt
D
Weeknight 1 Trip
x
28.
Rt
E
Weeknight 1 Trip
x
29.
Rt
F
Weeknight Variable
x
30.
Rt
G
Weeknight Variable
x
31.
Paratransit Commitment A
X
X
X
32.
Paratransit Commitment B
X
X
33.
Paratransit Commitment C
X
111-11
010 6 0848
FIGURE III-6
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Annual Hours of Service By Alternative
Recommended Plan
REVENUE HOURS (Thousands)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Westin Consulting Services
December, 1990
111 -12
BASELINE INTERMEDIATE MAXIMUM
0106 0849
Chapter IV
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
0106 0850
CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process
used to evaluate the Baseline, Intermediate and Maximum Alter-
natives. Several procedures were used. one was based upon
the technical information developed for each alternative.
This information was compared to expected performance in terms
of evaluation criteria and measures.
The second procedure involved
relative success in achieving the
by the consultant and the DCCTD at
ning process.
scoring each alternative's
seven attributes identified
the beginning of the plan-
Technical Evaluation
criteria were developed to evaluate the alternatives.
The evaluation criteria that evolved as a result of the review
process are included in Figure IV-1. Five major categories
were identified: cost, productivity, markets served, service
characteristics and system quality and integrity. Each of
these evaluation criterion has certain sub-components and mea-
sures that score the success of each alternative using rela-
tive quantitative or qualitative factors.
The range of ratings for each evaluation criterion are
shown in Figure IV-1. Each alternative is evaluated according
to the criteria listed in the first column and given a ranking
corresponding to one of the potential scores shown in the sec-
ond column.
Perhaps the most important consideration in evaluating
the alternatives is cost. Figures IV-2, 3 and 4 list the op-
erating costs and vehicle requirements for each alternative.
A larger contingency percentage was assumed for the Baseline
than the other two alternatives due to the difficulty in pre-
dicting unanticipated operational costs of a totally new set
of services. This contingency percentage has been reduced in-
crementally for each of the other two alternatives due to the
fact that they are designed to be implemented in phases and
experience should require less of a provision for unantici-
pated costs. It is anticipated that the contingency amount
might also be used as'discretionary funding.
0106 0851
FIGURE IV-1
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Evaluation Criteria and Potential Ratings
EVALUATION CRITERIA RATINGS
COST
Total Operating Cost High/
Cost Efficiency Medium/
Cost Effectiveness Low
Capital Costs
PRODUCTIVITY
Passenger/Mile High/
Passengers/Trip Medium/
Passengers/Hour Low
MARKETS SERVED
Commuters Convenient/
Elderly Adequate/
Disabled Limited
Youth/Student
Low Income
Tourist
Special Events
Shoppers
SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Accessibility Convenient/
Span Adequate/
Frequency Limited
Connectivity
Directness
Clarity/Simplicity
System Coverage
SYSTEM QUALITY AND INTEGRITY
Support of Other Services Critical/
Systems Integration Desirable
IV-2
0106 0852
Each of the individual service options included in the
Baseline Service Alternative typically requires one transit
vehicle and most are very similar in operating cost re-
quirements. The paratransit commitment includes the pro-
vision for acquiring three vans and the contingency line
item identifies three buses and one additional van that
would be used in anticipation of future service expansion
and as spares.
The cost requirements for the Intermediate Service
Alternative are included in Figure IV-3. The total incre-
mental additional annual operating cost for the Intermedi-
ate Alternative is a relatively modest $268,000. When
added to the Baseline operating cost the total for this al-
ternative is $1,746,700 as shown in Figure IV-3. The total
FIGURE IV-2
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Baseline Service Options
SERVICE OPTIONS
COST
VEHICLES
1.
Rt A Weekday 1/Hour
$165,500
1
Bus
2.
Rt B Weekday 4 Trips
178,200
1
Bus
3.
Rt C Weekday 1/Hour
165,500
1
Bus
4.
Rt D Weekday 1/Hour
172,900
1
Bus
5.
Rt E Weekday 1/Hour
188,700
1
Bus
6.
Rt F Weekday Variable
115,100
1
Van
7.
Rt G Weekday Variable
115,100
1
Van
31.
Paratransit Commitment
243,300
3
Vans
Contingency/Discretionary
134,400
3
Buses
1
Van
BASELINE TOTALS
$ 1,478,700
8
Buses
6
Vans
fleet requirement includes no additional buses or vans since
the intermediate alternative services can use existing weekday
vehicles for the inaugurated Saturday services.
Figure IV-4 lists the costs for the Maximum Service Al-
ternative. Of the $710,600 incremental additional costs for
IV-3
01®6 0853
this alternative, nearly $180,000
frequencies on Route B weekdays.
responsible for the additional bus
native operations.
is for expanding service
This particular item is also
required by Maximum Alter-
The next largest component of annual operating cost in-
creases occurs in the Intermediate Alternative and involves
Saturday service on all local routes: Item 12 - Route C, Item
13 - Route D and Item 14 - Route E. The next major component
inaugurates Saturday service on the two regional bus routes:
the service between Bend and Redmond, Item 9 - Route A, and
the service between Redmond, Sisters, Bend and La Pine, Item
10 - Route B. None of these routes requires the acquisition
of an additional bus. The expanded area van and paratransit
services likewise require no additional vehicles under the In-
termediate Alternative.
FIGURE IV-3
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Intermediate Service Options
SERVICE OPTIONS
9 Rt A Saturday 1/Hr
10. Rt B Saturday 4 Trips
12. Rt C Saturday 1/Hour
13. Rt D Saturday 1/Hour
14. Rt E Saturday 1/Hour
15. Rt F Saturday Variable
16. Rt G Saturday Variable
32. Paratransit Saturday Commit
8% Contingency/Discretionary
TOTAL INTERMEDIATE
TOTAL INTERMEDIATE
INCLUDING BASELINE
COST
34,000
36,600
34,000
35,600
38,800
23,700
23,700
21,800
19,800
$ 268,000
$ 1,746,700
VEHICLES
0 Vehicles
8 Buses
6 Vans
Each of the three alternatives was scored progressively
higher in the technical evaluation of the alternatives under
the cost category. The Baseline was given a "low" score, the
Intermediate Alternative a "medium" score and the Maximum Al-
IV-4
0100 0854
ternative a "high" score as shown in Figure IV-5. This is
offset when the productivity of each alternative is taken into
consideration. The Baseline was scored "high," the Intermedi-
ate Alternative "medium," and the Maximum scored "low,"
reflecting the lower anticipated ridership in the Saturday,
Sunday and Night alternatives respectively.
Transit Service Alternative Operating Costs
The technical evaluation also rated each alternative
based upon how well it served a variety of markets. These
markets included commuters, elderly, disabled, youth/student,
low income, tourist, special events and shoppers. Each alter-
native was judged to be either convenient, adequate or lim-
ited.
Although the Baseline Service Alternative is expected to
provide excellent service to the elderly and disabled due to
the high priority commitment of providing increased transit
service to this constituency, other markets will receive lim-
ited service. The additional service included in the Interme-
diate and Maximum Service Alternatives provides incrementally
greater service to the traditional transit markets. There-
fore, these alternatives are scored progressively higher by
being given "adequate" and "convenient" ratings.
The fourth evaluation category involves service charac-
teristics including accessibility, span of service, frequency
of service, connectivity, directness, clarity/simplicity and
system coverage. Since the Baseline Service Alternative has a
limited span of service, frequency and accessibility, it was
scored as being "limited." Likewise, since both the Interme-
diate and Maximum Service Alternatives had incrementally
greater span of service, frequency and accessibility, they
were given the increasingly higher rating of "adequate" and
"convenient."
The last category addresses system quality and integrity
as measured by both the support to other public services and
the integration of the overall transit system with the commu-
nities it is designed to serve. All of the three alternatives
were judged to be critical but for different reasons. The
Baseline Service Alternative is identified as being critical
because it provides basic transit services where none exist
today. The Intermediate and Maximum Service Alternatives were
judged critical because they add an essential set of service
improvements that enhance the quality and integrity of the
system.
IV-5
0106 0855
FIGURE IVA
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Maximum Service Options
SERVICE OPTIONS COST VEHICLES
8.
Rt
B
Weekday 4 Add'1 Trips
178,200 1 Bus
11.
Rt
B
Saturday 4 Add'1 Trips
36,600
17.
Rt
A
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
39,300
18.
Rt
B
Sunday/Holiday 4 trips
42,300
19.
Rt
C
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
39,300
20.
Rt
D
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
41,000
21.
Rt
E
Sunday/Holiday 1/Hour
44,800
22.
Rt
F
Sunday/Holiday Variable
27,300
23.
Rt
G
Sunday/Holiday Variable
27,300
24.
Rt
A
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
25.
Rt
B
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
26.
Rt
C
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
27.
Rt
D
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
28.
Rt
E
Weekday Night 1 Trip
25,300
29
Rt
F
Weekday Night Variable
17,700
30
Rt
G
Weekday Night Variable
17,700
33.
Paratransit Commitment
51,600
5%
Contingency/Discretionary.
33,800
TOTAL MAXIMUM $
710,600 1 Bus
TOTAL MAXIMUM INCLUDING
BASELINE AND INTERMEDIATE $2,457,300 9 Buses
6 Vans
IV-6
0106 0856
FIGURE IV-5
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Technical Evaluation Summary
CRITERIA
BASELINE
INTERMEDIATE
MAXIMUM
Cost
Low
Medium
High
Productivity
High
Medium
Low
Markets Served
Limited
Adequate
Convenient
Service Characteristics
Limited
Adequate
Convenient
System Quality and Integrity
Critical
Critical
IV-7
Olds 0857
Chapter V
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
0106 0858
CHAPTER V
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The primary purpose of this chapter is to outline the fi-
nancial assumptions and program that support the policy recom-
mendations of the transit plan. The policy recommendations
are primarily founded upon the on-site evaluations and inter-
actions with the DCCTD Board and Deschutes County Citizens
that has taken place over the past six months during the tran-
sit planning process.
The consultant team has participated in several meetings
with the DCCTD Board, ODOT, and local public agency staff and
officials throughout the proposed transit service area. Dur-
ing this process, it became very clear that the citizens of
the region need and want high quality transit service.
In summary, the following section outlines the basis for
initiating transit service within the Deschutes County Trans-
portation District. A 0.65 mil real property tax, or combina-
tion of taxes generating a similar revenue base, would support
the implementation of all components of the Baseline Service
Alternative as shown in Figure V-1 by late in 1995. All com-
ponents of the intermediate Service Alternative would be im-
plemented by 1997 and the weeknight component of the Maximum
Service Alternative by the end of 1998.
Implementation Approach
A series of assumptions concerning service implementation
have been incorporated into the financial analysis. In addi-
tion, certain assumptions concerning the nature of the Trans-
portation District organization and management structure are
also implicit in the development of this analysis.
A number of assumptions have been made concerning the re-
lationship between the elements of the Baseline, Intermediate
and Maximum Alternatives. It has been assumed that all Base-
line Alternative service elements are to be implemented before
any of the Intermediate Alternative elements are implemented;
and similarly, that all Intermediate Alternative elements pre-
cede the implementation of any Maximum Alternative elements.
See Figure V-6 for the assumed implementation schedule
implicit in the financial analysis.
0106 0859
FIGURE V-1A
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Sisters
Baseline Service Alternative
Regional Service
S1
Redmond
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Baseline Service Alternative
Local Service
dmond
Weslin Consulting Services
V-2
FIGURE V-1 B
.
0106 0860
Further assumptions were made concerning the scheduled
implementation of elements within each of the alternatives.
It has been assumed that service additions are made semi-
annually, on April 1 and September 1 of each year, 1993
through 2000.
The capital program provides for the purchase of all
buses by 1997, while a replacement program for existing
elderly/disabled vans runs through 1999. These are assumed to
be new, "off-the-shelf" vehicles. The depreciated life of
buses is approximately 12 years, although their useful life
can be substantially longer. Vans and sedans are depreciated
over a 5-year life. For the entire study period, an allowance
for the replacement of aging coaches and vans has been in-
cluded in the depreciation account of the operating cost
schedule. Additional capital for service vehicles should be
necessary only for the purpose of expanding the fleet after
the year 2000.
The capital program also includes the cost of leasing
temporary administration and maintenance facilities in 1993
and 1994, the construction of a combined administration/
maintenance facility in 1995 and miscellaneous capital pro-
jects such as shelters during the following period.
Rather than attempting to develop costs for specific cap-
ital projects, the methodology has been to allocate sufficient
funds for the construction of critical facilities (maintenance
headquarters) and for the development of capital support fa-
cilities (shelters, etc.) during the remainder of the decade.
The precise scope of the capital program will be determined by
available funds.
Funding Analysis
Public transit systems in Oregon obtain operating rev-
enues from several sources: local taxes, Cigarette Tax, fed-
eral grants, fares and miscellaneous sources. Several al-
ternatives are available for the first source, local taxes.
These alternatives include a sales tax, motor fuels tax, prop-
erty tax and utility taxes. The property tax would range from
$0.60 to $0.65 per $1,000 of assessed value, depending upon
the level of service to be operated, with the lower tax rate
funding only Baseline Alternative services.
V-3
0106 0861
A local-option motor fuels tax is currently allowed by
Oregon State law and is typically levied against sales of non-
exempt motor fuels within the proposed benefit area. Current-
ly, all such fuel tax collections must be allocated to road
and highway projects. However, in many states, this strict
use requirement has been modified in favor of public transpor-
tation projects. Should this policy be changed by the state
legislature, a local-option motor fuels tax could provide a
source of funds to soften the property tax burden of District
operations. A more thorough discussion of funding alterna-
tives is included in the Technical Appendix.
While the financial plan assumes local taxes to consist
entirely of ad valorem property taxes, a lower rate could be
assessed along with the imposition of a motor fuels or other
local tax to augment the reduced property tax revenues.
The financial analysis has assumed voter approval of the
levy of a property tax base of 0.65 mils. The actual levy of
the additional property tax has been assumed to commence on
November 1, 1992, with first collections coming to the Dis-
trict in January, 1993.
The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) ad-
ministers federal funds designated for the preservation, im-
provement, and expansion of transit systems. These monies may
be used for administration, operations, maintenance, and capi-
tal projects. The majority of federal funds available are
designated for use by large urbanized areas, with the re-
mainder being disbursed to small urban and rural areas.
The only existing program of federal supplemental funding
for which the Deschutes County Transportation District would
be eligible is UMTA Section 18 funds. These funds are admini-
stered by the Oregon State Department of Transportation and
are allocated to all eligible counties or transportation dist-
ricts in the state on the basis of population as part of the
Special Transportation Fund. Currently, such funds allocated
to Deschutes County total just over $ 80,000 per year. For
the purposes of this financial plan, it is assumed that the
proposed transportation district will be eligible for the
entire allocation, and further that the available fund dis-
bursements will grow at a rate of only 3% per year.
Miscellaneous revenues are received as a result of adver-
tising, charter and interest income. The Transportation Dist-
rict Board will develop policy concerning advertising on tran-
sit vehicles. Such advertising could conceivably bring in an
additional $30,000 in revenues to the District. For the pur-
poses of this analysis, no advertising revenue will be as-
sumed. In addition, federal regulations constrain the ability
V-4
0106 0862
of a public agency to engage in contract services. Therefore,
miscellaneous revenue has been assumed to consist primarily of
interest income.
Passenger Fares
The question of fare policy can be one of the most diffi-
cult for a new Transportation District to resolve. Many ex-
isting systems appear to be leaning in the direction of abol-
ishing user fares altogether. Support for this policy is war-
ranted for a number of reasons:
o The District may avoid a substantial capital ex-
penditure by bypassing the requirement to install
modern fareboxes, each costing between $2,500 and
$6,000, depending upon features and durability, in
its coaches. Other avoidable costs associated with
fare collection include construction and maintenance
of a vault room, purchase of a coin counting mach-
ine, implementing and maintaining additional ac-
counting functions and provision of armored truck
service and other security measures.
o In many jurisdictions, particularly in smaller sys-
tems, experience suggests that the cost of collect-
ing fares may often equal or exceed the revenue col-
lected.
o Drivers can concentrate upon providing superior ser-
vice to their passengers without the burden of
"policing" fare payment; thereby creating opportu-
nities for more friendly, courteous and pleasant in-
teractions between the drivers and passengers.
o Transfers need not be printed, distributed, punched,
handed out, collected nor monitored and transfer
policies need not be developed or enforced, thereby
reducing printing and distribution costs and promot-
ing a more friendly, less bureaucratic image of the
District and its services among its riders and the
general public.
o The fare-free transit concept is highly supportive
of the desire to promote the entire service area as
an interconnected, tourist-oriented area.
Conversely, the disadvantages of fare-free systems in-
clude the following:
o The perception that those who do not ride transit,
V-5
0106 0863
and who feel that they do not benefit by its opera-
tion, are paying a disproportionate share of operat-
ing costs
o The loss to the system of the revenue, however
small, which would be generated by farebox collec-
tions.
o The perception by many that "undesirable elements"
may be encouraged to abuse the system.
o The feeling that the public would not support a
system which was not, in some way, "paying its own
bills."
For the purposes of the financial analysis, it will be
assumed that a passenger fare will be collected, and further
that the average fare collected will be approximately $0.30
per passenger. Based upon the operating experience of other
systems of similar size to the proposed Deschutes County sys-
tem, fare revenue in 1990 would be expected to total approxi-
mately $3.25 per revenue hour of service. This amount will be
inflated at an annual rate of four percent for the purpose of
forecasting passenger revenues for the remainder of the plan-
ning period.
Special Transportation Services
It is estimated that upon implementation of public trans-
portation services by the Deschutes County Transportation Dis-
trict, as much as $150,000 of existing funding for special
transportation for the elderly and disabled may be lost to
existing providers. It has, therefore, been assumed that the
initial $150,000 of paratransit service offered by the Dist-
rict will be to replace current senior/disabled transportation
services funding, and that the remainder will provide addi-
tional services.
It has also been assumed that the full financial respon-
sibility for providing all senior/disabled transportation ser-
vices will eventually be assumed by the District. Consequent-
ly, the cost of supporting this operation indefinitely into
the future has been taken into account. The cost of maintain-
ing the current level of elderly/disabled services will esca-
late by at least 10% per year for the first five years of
operation due to pressures on wage scales and increased admin-
istrative overhead. Furthermore, the desire to set a strong
commitment to service this market will require additional fu-
ture funding. These extra expenses will come out of the con-
tingency fund account.
V-6
®106 0864
However, for the sake of clarity, only those additional
costs and revenues, over and above those now experienced by
existing paratransit service providers with the exception of
the aforementioned $150,000 funding replacement, are included
in the financial plan. At such time as the Transportation
District assumes full operating responsibility for all exist-
ing elderly and disabled services, a more detailed financial
analysis of economic impacts will need to be undertaken.
Additional Operational Considerations
The financial program assumes the purchase of "off-the-
shelf" vehicles and the costs associated with their purchase
and maintenance reflect this policy. However, conditions in
Deschutes County present unique opportunities to provide ad-
ditional services to the resident and tourist populations
alike. Some of those opportunities may require the modifi-
cation of vehicle specifications which may slightly increase
the associated costs of ownership and operation.
Because of the large influx of tourists into the area, a
number of strategies to tap this market could be employed.
Many opportunities for bicycle travel exist for tourists and
residents alike. Many systems have had success with the in-
clusion of bicycle racks on buses to transport riders to loca-
tions where bicycle travel is more enjoyable and safe. Lug-
gage-handling capacity could be provided on coaches operating
between resort areas and the airport or other intra-state or
interstate transportation terminals. Some systems have even
provided racks on their vehicles to carry skis and provide
transportation to ski areas during the winter season.
While specific provision for these additional amenities
is not included in the financial plan, the cost of providing
them is not great and can be accommodated if the desire exists
to do so. The consultant strongly urges the Transportation
District management to consider these options at the time spe-
cific service decisions are made.
Financial Program
The financial program places excess revenues for any
given year in an interest-bearing reserve fund, from which any
short-term shortfall of revenues may also be drawn. The rate
of interest earned from this reserve has been assumed to be
7.5%. The reserve fund starts with a zero balance on January
1, 1993. It is to be used in the event inflation rates con-
tained in the financial analysis may be exceeded or other
events may warrant the need to withdraw from the reserve.
V-7
0106 0865
Rates of inflation have been assumed to be 4% per year for tax
revenues, 5% per year for operating costs and 6% per year for
capital costs.
Based upon the assumptions described above and upon anal-
ysis of operating costs, capital costs and anticipated reven-
ue, a preliminary financial program has been developed that
can be used to guide the development of the Deschutes County
Transportation District through its formative period. Figure
V-2 identifies the projected revenues and expenditures for the
District during the first eight years in two year increments
assuming a 0.65 mil property tax or other comparable revenue
source.
The expenditures assume that portions of the Baseline
Service Alternative are initiated by September of 1993, and
that the entire Baseline Service Alternative is essentially in
operation by the end of 1995. Implementation of the Intermed-
iate Service Alternative begins in early 1996 and implementa-
tion of the Maximum Service Alternative begins by 1999. This
preliminary financial program does not provide sufficient rev-
enue to support the full implementation of all the services
identified in the Maximum Service Alternative. Without addi-
tional revenue sources, the Sunday and holiday services and
the frequency improvements to route B cannot be implemented
during the time horizon of this analysis.
For the purposes of this analysis, Sunday service was as-
sumed to have lowest priority. Even with the exclusion of
Sunday services, the cash reserves are maintained at a minimum
level in this preliminary analysis. Typically, citizens indi-
cate that Sunday service is of less importance than other cat-
egories of service. There is a certain degree of overhead re-
quired to implement Sunday service, including maintaining
maintenance and service facilities and providing supervisory
personnel and dispatch services. It is more cost-effective to
eliminate all Sunday service rather than maintain this over-
head for a reduced service and still be forced to eliminate
other classes of service as well.
The financial program contained in Figure V-2 shows that
by the end of the eight year period operating revenues and
expenditures are essentially in balance. This is primarily
due to the fact that major capital outlays required in the
earlier years have been completed. This analysis demonstrates
that the vast majority of those investments and services de-
sired by the community are affordable within a property tax
proposition of 0.65 mils or its equivalent. If additional
services or implementation of services at earlier points in
time are desired, additional revenue will be required.
V-8
FIGURE V-2
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Financial Program
(Including Interest Income and .6.5 Mil Property Tax)
(Amounts in $000s)
1993- 1995- 1997-
1994 1996 1998
REVENUES
0106 0866
1999-
2000
Local funding
$ 4,539
$ 4,909
$ 5,309
$ 5,744
Fares
54
130
176
210
Other
279
2,165
299
346
Totals
4,872
7,204
5,784
6,300
EXPENDITURES
Operations
1,441
3,908
4,985
5,925
Capital
2,662
3,649
494
194
Totals
4,103
7,557
5,479
6,119
CASH FLOW
Year-End Surplus 769 -353 305 181
Previous Reserve 0 769 416 721
Accumulated Surplus 769 416 721 902
Transit System Management
Management approaches follow two major themes, then fall
into many variations. The first approach is the direct man-
agement of the bus system using staff hired by the Board. The
second approach is to hire a contract management firm to oper-
ate the system. This contracting approach can range from the
provision of a single manager to the assumption of the total
operation of the system including provision of buses, maint-
enance, accounting and all other functions necessary to pro-
vide transit services. The ultimate decision is one that is
governed primarily by local preference. It is also influenced
by the scale of the operation, the resources available and the
degree of control desired by the Policy Board.
V-9
0106 0867
The primary element of the direct staffing alternative
from the viewpoint of the Policy Board is the General Manager.
Significant consideration should be given to the qualifica-
tions and responsibilities for this position. Like any Board
of Directors, the Transit Board retains the responsibility for
establishing its mission statement, goals, objectives, poli-
cies and performance standards. It is the responsibility of
the General Manager to identify the staffing necessary to
achieve the direction identified by the Board of Directors.
The General Manager assures that transit operations function
properly on a day-to-day basis in conformance with all of the
expectations established by the Board. The General Manager's
performance is directly related to the degree of success in
achieving this primary responsibility.
The General Manager and staff should have a free hand in
operating the system. The Board's function is overall guid-
ance, not supervision of operations or matters of detail.
This approach depends upon having selected a highly qualified
individual to operate the system. However, good transit man-
agement talent is hard to find. It may be necessary to offer
a level of compensation that is higher than other management
positions in existing governmental agencies in the area. Cau-
tion should be exercised when considering managerial experi-
ence in fields other than transit; especially, for a new tran-
sit system.
Transit management for a new system can become extraordi-
narily complicated and demanding. Public funding support will
be required from a variety of sources with numerous rules,
regulations and requirements affecting the provisions for ser-
vice delivery, purchasing, equipment specifications, personnel
hiring and other administrative functions. The demands on a
General Manager for a small system are compounded by the fact
that a large management support team would not be available.
The manager would have to know how to run the entire opera-
tion. Consequently, the General Manager for a new system will
have to be one who has significant breadth and depth of expe-
rience in the transit industry. As the system matures and op-
erating procedures are established and clearly understood, a
transit manager with more specialized talent and direct local
community experience could inherit the position after the sys-
tem has been in operation for several years.
one possibility is to select the first General Manager on
a contract basis. This individual would be retained for a
specified length of time, such as up to two years, and would
be offered compensation for salary, relocation and some living
expenses. It would be made clear by the advertisement for
this position that it is not a career opportunity. No bene-
fits would be offered such as retirement and pension. The
V-10
0106 0858
contract would specify the terms and conditions for the ser-
vice to be provided. These would be developed by a selection
committee appointed by the District Board. A major task of
this committee would be to list the tasks they want performed
and the basis for identifying the best candidate to achieve
those tasks.
The District Board should look for a transit manager with
obvious hands-on experience. Ideally, he or she would be
capable of driving a bus, would have some mechanical knowl-
edge, would understand accounting principles and practices,
would understand funding grant regulations, would have been
involved in labor negotiations and would have held a variety
of positions within transit organizations other than General
Manager. This individual should be able to work beside the
employees of the District at any given moment. The manager of
a small operation will often be called upon to "pinch-hit"
when a staffing absence or vacancy exists. As the experience
of the organization grows, there will be less of a need for
this type of manager.
Under the contract management alternative, the District
would contract with a firm for a specific time period to pro-
vide an explicitly defined service and to manage operations.
Typically, the term of the contract is for up to three years
and the assets used to provide service are owned by the Dis-
trict. If the assets are to be provided by the contract man-
agement firm, a longer contract term should be provided. In
either case, the management firm is paid a flat fee for ser-
vices rendered.
The primary advantage of hiring a contract management
firm is the assurance of having experienced management. The
contract would guarantee the availability of skilled, profes-
sional transit managers who are supported by a central staff
in another location that offer support in areas such as labor
negotiations and maintenance.
This alternative is often preferred where the governing
body is interested in having a lower degree of control over
the overall provision of transit services to the community.
The contract management firm is in business for profit and
consequently represents a more costly alternative. The addi-
tional cost is theoretically offset by the provision of a
package of management capabilities that are far better than
those which could be effectively provided by purely local
staff and resources.
A report prepared by James Perry, "Organizational Form
and Transit Performance: A Research Review and Empirical
Analysis" prepared for the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-
V-11
0106 0869
tration found that the relative performance for transit prop-
erties using contract management firms was no better than for
transit properties that did not use such services. The only
incentive to a management firm to perform efficiently is the
potential loss of the contract at the end of the term. To
provide additional incentives, clauses may be added to the
contract to offer incentive-based compensation relating to
performance. However, this has not been a widely accepted
practice in the industry.
A wide variety of contract management arrangements exist.
These range from having a contract management firm on retainer
to provide assistance in a specific area such as labor negoti-
ations to having the contract management firm provide a com-
plete package including the transit vehicles, maintenance fa-
cility, operating personnel and all other functions necessary
to operate a complete transit system.
The recommended course of action for the Deschutes County
Transportation District is to eventually employ a permanent
general manager and staff. However, during the first several
years of operation, it may be more prudent to utilize either a
contract management firm, contract personnel, consultants on
retainer, or some mix of highly-skilled, seasoned transit vet-
erans who are not interested in being the career oriented gen-
eral manager. A new system start-up requires an extensive ar-
ray and depth of capabilities that are not as necessary after
the system becomes operational. Although these talents are
critical during the first several years, they may be an unnec-
essary financial burden to the overhead of the new agency once
the transit system is operational.
FIGURE V-3
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Annual Operating Cost By Alternative
recommended Plan
ANNUAL COST (Millions)
$1.4
$1.2
$1.0
$0.8
$0.6
$0.4
$0.2
$0.0
BASELINE INTERMEDIATE MAXIMUM
Weslin Consulting Services V-12
December. 1990
010 6 08 70
FIGURE V-4
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Annual Operating Cost By Service Class
Recommended Plan
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (Thousands)
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
Weslin Consulting Services
February, 1991
V-13
REGIONAL LOCAL RURAL PARATRANSIT
0106 08'72
FIGURE V-6
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Implementation Schedule
Recommended Plan
REVENUE
ANNUAL
MONTH/YEAR
ITEM
ROUTE
DAYS
HOURS
COST
SEP.
1993
1
A
Weekday
3,310
$ 165,500
2
B
Weekday
3,563
178,200
APR.
1994
3
C
Weekday
3,310
165,500
4
D
Weekday
3,458
172,900
SEP.
1994
5
E
Weekday
3,774
188,700
APR.
1995
6
F
Weekday
3,289
115,100
SEP.
1995
7
G
Weekday
3,289
115,000
APR.
1996
9
A
Saturday
680
34,000
10
B
Saturday
732
36,600
15
F
Saturday
676
23,700
16
G
Saturday
676
23,700
SEP.
1996
12
C
Saturday
680
34,000
13
D
Saturday
711
35,500
14
E
Saturday
776
38,800
APR.
1999
24
A
Weeknight
506
25,300
25
B
Weeknight
506
25,300
26
C
Weeknight
506
25,300
27
D
Weeknight
506
25,300
28
E
Weeknight
506
25,300
29
F
Weeknight
506
17,700
30
G
Weeknight
506
17,700
V-15
w
FIGURE V-7
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Revenues and Expenses 1993-2000
Recommended Plan
(Millions)
$6
$5-
$4-
$3-
$2-
$1 $0
0106 08'73
,\\\U
93 94 95 96 97 98
YEAR
REVENUES ® EXPENDITURES
Weslin Consulting Services
February, 1991
99 00
V-16
r
e
FIGURE V-8
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Service Hours 1993-2000
Recommended Plan
REVENUE HOURS (Thousands)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Westin Consulting Services
February, 1991
0106 0874
V-17
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
YEAR