A Short Ride on The Bus: OCTA’s Mission Imperiled 1. Summary For many of the county’s low-income wage earn- ers, office

Published: February 05, 2010 8 pages

Ver PDF original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings and Recommendations 5 findings

While severe cuts are being made in Orange Rail project. County’s bus service because of reduced

No recommendations for this finding

OCTA’s need for operating funds is more

Related Recommendations (1)

The governmental relations committee of the Based on its investigation of the Orange County OCTA Board should urge Orange County’s Transportation Authority, the 2009-2010 Orange congressional delegation to lobby for legisla- County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal find- tive modification of the $2.25 billion award ings, as follows: of federal stimulus funds to the High Speed

Service hour reductions, route eliminations Representatives of business and industry as and fare increases have negatively impacted well as the public could be invited by the lo- the total number of OCTA bus boardings. cal transportation officials to participate.

Related Recommendations (1)

If full state funding is restored to OCTA, bus funding, OCTA has budgeted $143 mil- fares should be reduced because the 2009 lion of Measure M revenue for an Anaheim fare increase was counterproductive. Lower transportation center for which Anaheim is fares could stimulate greater ridership and contributing no funds. thus increase operating revenue.

OCTA needs enhanced authority in order Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3, to overcome local parochial interests that and R.4 are required from the OCTA. thwart development of a modern county- wide transit system. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This finding that is disputed and shall include an timeframe shall not exceed six months from explanation of the reasons therefore. the date of publication of the grand jury (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section report. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the (4) The recommendation will not be imple- responding person or entity shall report one of the mented because it is not warranted or is not following actions: reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Page 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury

Related Recommendations (1)

Orange County political leaders and trans- urgent and immediate than that of other portation managers should launch a series transportation entities, yet OCTA has not of meetings aimed at creating a countywide moved to revise its funding distribution transit agency that will have sufficient au- formula so that the county’s bus system can thority and funding to overcome parochial- receive Measure M revenue. ism in developing a modern transit system.

are required from the OCTA. keep pace. Meanwhile, Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who 6. RECOMMENDATIONS is chairman of the High Speed Rail board, promises 600,000 new construction jobs to build the “bul- Based on its investigation of bus transit system let train” line and another 450,000 permanent jobs in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County statewide once the system is built with a large infu- Grand Jury makes the following five recommenda- sion of federal funds. tions: Most observers agree that it will be many years R.1 Re-examine the decision to use $143 million before any of those jobs are created, even if the num- of Measure M revenue to build the Anaheim bers are accurate. And critics point out that some of Regional Transportation Intermodal Center the federal money could be used more quickly by and consider acting to revise the Measure OCTA to save transit jobs and maintain bus routes. M fund allocation formula, with a goal of increasing the portion for bus transit and re- 5. FINDINGS ducing the portion for freeway construction.

Related Recommendations (1)

FINDINGS ducing the portion for freeway construction. R.2 The governmental relations committee of the Based on its investigation of the Orange County OCTA Board should urge Orange County’s Transportation Authority, the 2009-2010 Orange congressional delegation to lobby for legisla- County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal find- tive modification of the $2.25 billion award ings, as follows: of federal stimulus funds to the High Speed F.1 While severe cuts are being made in Orange Rail project. County’s bus service because of reduced R.3 If full state funding is restored to OCTA, bus funding, OCTA has budgeted $143 mil- fares should be reduced because the 2009 lion of Measure M revenue for an Anaheim fare increase was counterproductive. Lower transportation center for which Anaheim is fares could stimulate greater ridership and contributing no funds. thus increase operating revenue. F.2 OCTA’s need for operating funds is more R.4 Orange County political leaders and trans- urgent and immediate than that of other portation managers should launch a series transportation entities, yet OCTA has not of meetings aimed at creating a countywide moved to revise its funding distribution transit agency that will have sufficient au- formula so that the county’s bus system can thority and funding to overcome parochial- receive Measure M revenue. ism in developing a modern transit system. F.3 Service hour reductions, route eliminations Representatives of business and industry as and fare increases have negatively impacted well as the public could be invited by the lo- the total number of OCTA bus boardings. cal transportation officials to participate. F.4 OCTA needs enhanced authority in order Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3, to overcome local parochial interests that and R.4 are required from the OCTA. thwart development of a modern county- wide transit system. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury Page

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

R7

REQUIRED RESPONSES (1) The recommendation has been imple- mented, with a summary regarding the The California Penal Code specifies the required implemented action. permissible responses to the findings and recom- (2) The recommendation has not yet been mendations contained in this report. The specific implemented, but will be implemented in sections are quoted below: the future, with a timeframe for implemen- §933.05 tation. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section (3) The recommendation requires further 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding analysis, with an explanation and the scope person or entity shall indicate one of the following: and parameters of an analysis or study, and (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or agency or department being investigated or partially with the finding, in which case reviewed, including the governing body of the response shall specify the portion of the the public agency when applicable. This

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

Orange County Transportation Authority 8/10/10, 421K

August 10, 2010 • 6 pages • 5 responses • Score: -5 (+0, 0, -5) View Details ▾

PDF

5 responses to findings and recommendations

While severe cuts are being made in Orange Rail project. County’s bus service because of reduced

Response: Disagree Score: -1

OCTA disagrees wholly with this finding. Funding for Regional Gateways program (Project T) of the Measure M2 (M2) expenditure plan provides for connections to future high-speed rail systems in Orange County.

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The recommeaedactiooa will not be impiernented because it is not warranted. The federal economic stimulus funds were awarded for statewide use to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, a unique government agency over which OCTA has no authority.

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The recommendatiom will1 not be Cmplemen&d because it Is not warranted. As was noted in the Grand Jury report, transit agencies like OCTA are required by the state to maintain a fare box recovery of 20 percent in order to receive state funding.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

OCTA disagrees wholly with this finding. While OCTA is the primary transportation planning and operating agency for the county's bus transit system, OCTA is not pursuing controlling oversight of city policies and processes.

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The recommeaadatBom wi&I not be implemented because it is not warranted. OCTA's transportation vision and planning is a result of ongoing and extensive outreach to the pubtic including residents, business leaders, community ieaders, transit users, and elected officials.